IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers
of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence…
A S TUDY GUIDE
The
Uniform Commercial Code
and other things related…
For Freedom in America
TODAY!
People who stand on their Rights harm no one.
People who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
Copyright © 2002 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
.
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies;
and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their
operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people
would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to
tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of
their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the
rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative
powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining
in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment
of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat
out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged
by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of
our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation
and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous
ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to
become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our
frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated
Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of
attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity,
and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of
consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them,
as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to
the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought
to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as
Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support
of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor
56 signatures on the Declaration appear…
Copyright © 2002 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The author hereby grants to anyone who chooses to upgrade or otherwise enhance the material
contained herewith in the following: 1. You may do so with complementary material that is, to the
best of your knowledge, true and factual. 2. You may otherwise use the material in any way that is
not disparaging to the subject matter or the author. 3. You will credit the source
This writing was
Constructed
from many sources by
a natural person
domiciled on the land in the
states united of America
for the intellectual
entertainment, enlightenment and enrichment
of others so being
Blank Page
This book is constructed so that it may be printed using a printer with a two side print feature.
2
“Greetings and how are you doing today?”
Your response…
“I don’t know anything about you – please tell me a bit about who you are, who do you think you are and
how does the government view you…”
Your response…
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
As some may suspect, defining one’s self is may not be as easy as first thought. True, some of the first things
to come to mind might include race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Clear thinking about who you are – helps establish
just who you are - in the minds of people you meet and deal with throughout your time on this planet. As you
go through time (age) you find that you change, your thinking changes and people relate to you differently.
How do you respond to persons with presumed authority over you? How do you respond when the
government knocks on your door? The visit may be as simple as a traffic citation, a property tax notice or
perhaps a bit more complex like the I.R.S. telling you that you owe money. Perhaps it might be a squad of
darkly clothed, armed commandos in the night, or perhaps you may get a summons to court. Who knows as
the government today moves in many and variously different ways. How will you respond should “they”
decide to move on you? What can you do? Get an attorney? Run home to mom? Or learn how to stand for
yourself!
Standing for one’s self is what this book is all about. In today’s world virtually everything runs in commerce!
It is not your father’s world! It is not the idealistic world you were possibly taught to believe exists. I today’s
world all is run in commerce. In today’s world you are eight a creditor or a debtor. Which would you rather
be?
This book doesn’t purport to have all of the answers – however, it is an excellent beginning point. The author
has expended many dollars and hours of time collecting, researching, verifying and comprehending this
information. This book contains stuff “they” don’t want you to know about! This book will shorten your
learning curve dramatically! And yet it is just a beginning point. Most likely all of your life you have been
trained to live like a debtor, act like a debtor, just be a debtor. Always just being a slave to “whomever.”
Never quite being able to get ahead. Are you happy living this way? As you read this material flip back and
re-read the cover – again and again. The material presented here within will, when properly applied, help you
to move yourself to the other side of the ledger sheet – debtor no more-creditor forevermore!
Here is the order of authority for you t begin with:
Creator / God / Sovereign created?
You (man/ creditor) created?
states/republics created?
federal government (corporation) created?
corporations (STATE OF ______, COUNTY OF ______, CITY OF ________,
IBM,; EXXON, ENRON, GE, etc.;
Fallen man / 14th Amendment, U.S. Citizen / strawman / debtor)
Where in the above do you fit in? What do you desire to be?
This book is about regaining your sovereignty – enjoy!
4
Attitude
It is said that evil triumphs when good people
choose to do nothing.
It can also be said that good people irritate bad
people because the bad people know better.
What evil lurks in the mind of a bureaucrat?
Who knows and who wants to find out?
How many people does it take to change a
system? Systems are much like people, they
don’t like to change. Questions then become:
“How was it done before now?” and “If this
continues where will I or we be?”
The author realizes that the information contain
in this writing may have an affect on your
perception of things. Avoid developing and/or
having a ‘chip-on-your-shoulder.’ Be wise as a
serpent and harmless as a dove. There are many
people in jail and prisons today because of their
attitude - primarily expressed through their
mouth. You know what I am talking about.
Consider that you have two eyes, two ears and
one mouth. The mouth has two ends – which do
you speak through?
Regarding the police, government / bureaucrats,
the I.R.S., taxation and the like – always
remember that it is your right and duty to avoid
situations not to your benefit – where people get
in trouble is when they evade such things.
Staying ‘below the radar’ is good tact. Not
waving a large red flag helps.
Ever notice how some people ‘stand out’ in a
crowd?
Watch a group of people and ‘notice’ the
individual players. You don’t have to go far, just
visit your local mall. After a while you’ll notice
and pick the players who [seem to] want to be
‘picked’ up for something (a date, shoplifting,
vagrancy, whatever, etc.) and those who haven’t
the time for such matters. Notice the people who
you wouldn’t want to ‘touch with a ten-foot
pole.’ Why? Perhaps it is because you can tell by
their ‘attitude’ / demeanor that they have ‘got
themselves together’, they walk with authority –
like they ‘own the place.’ In the jungle it is the
timid, shy and weak that get attacked first – the
one who ‘shows’ fear. Good advise for living:
Always be respectful – never be fearful. Meet
people on a ‘level playing field’ and ‘hold your
ground.’ What goes around eventually comes
[back] around. Do you go along to get along?
Society, and its players, is an interesting study –
how do you fit in?
Above all consider this: Question authority,
question jurisdiction! Exploratory questions like:
“What gives you the right to…”, “What grants
you the authority to …”; “From where does
your authority come?” Remember they cannot
move against you on their own volition and for
there not to be remedy means that whatever they
are attempting to foist on you is an edict, a diktat
from or by a dictator. You have right and duty to
resist an unlawful order.
Who is using what against whom for what and
how are they using it?
For those who may feel that this doesn’t pertain
to them or ‘it’ won’t happen to me – read this:
As I write this there appears a story, in local
newspaper, about a local county bureaucrat who
was publicly criminally charged by the local
county attorney and, with great fanfare, arrested
by law officers (U.S. Marshals) in his office,
because of a complaint filed by a State agency.
(I remember seeing the thing on the local
television news program, and as we all know,
‘television news is truthful, accurate and
complete’. And, of course, the local newspaper
went with the story also.) The news media had a
‘field day’ with this person and I guess there
were people who wanted to hang’em and would
probably done so given a chance. Nine months
latter charges are dropped because, as it turns
out, he didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to
do. The County attorney, in newspaper story,
“…characterized the problem as communication
gap between the upper and lower levels of the
[particular] [state] commission…” which helped
to file charges against the person.
2
“I don’t think the investigators did the job the
way they should have, …” so said the accused,
who’s life is now in shambles because of
bureaucratic blundering.
This author is sure that you, the reader, can
recall instances, in the reader’s local area, in the
past where mistakes (possibly like the one just
mentioned) were made. What is the attitude of
those ‘in charge’? Can “they” do no wrong?
Remember, if any one of us is oppressed then we
all are oppressed.
Also on attitude…
Should you happen to become involved with ‘the
system’ in anyway that you find not to be to
your benefit, consider the following: Several
years ago a fellow, I met, conducted a series of
research projects concerning human perception
and behavior. He published the results of his
work and he became quite well know because of
it. His name John T. Molloy, his book: Dress
For Success (ISBN: 0446385522) If you talked
with John he would tell without hesitation that
he didn’t invent the findings in his book, he only
reported his observations. Over the years I have
made similar observations. The point here being
– if you walk into a situation where you are
dealing with someone who may have power over
you (perceived or otherwise) and you look like
one of the people he/she sees standing in the
street seeking money, or going through
dumpsters, etc., you are most likely to be treated
accordingly. Notice the other players in the
situation. Individuality is a fine attribute and
encouraged, however there is a time and place
for everything. If you are going into a courtroom
situation looking less than the usual players (i.e.,
lawyers / attorneys, regular attendees, etc.) you
can’t expect to be taken seriously because, as
John Molloy points out, peoples’ first and
continuing visual perceptions are extremely
controlling. And, as “life’s a stage,” notice, one
tends to dress to his/her part. I’m not saying that
you have to ‘go Armani’ – just being neat, clean
and dressed-well will go a long way in helping
you make your presentation – and having it
accepted! (Notice how you or your friends act
when you are dressed-up. Notice how you act
otherwise.)
3
On the subject of friends… should you choose to
“become involved” with the stuff of this writing
be warned: you may loose some of your friends.
And you may acquire some new ones! This
author feels that if a person is truly your fiend
you’ll know it by their actions. Are they willing
to stand with and by you - through whatever?
And how are you for them? Having a few really
good and true friends is, by far, worth more than
having many who’ll not be around when you
need them. It is a choice thing
And for those who feel they may not be “worth
it.” If you aren’t just who is and why? If you
really feel you are not worthy or good enough
may I offer that I believe that by taking the time
to consider what is written here - you are!
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Prelude
I'm sure you have heard that if one were to put a
frog into a pot of boiling water the frog would
do its best to jump out of it, but that if you put
that same frog into warm water and gradually
heat the water to boiling the frog would just sit
there, as the temperature rises, until it dies. Well
folks, government has us ‘in-the-pot’ and is
‘gradually heating’ the water.
Politicians and bureaucrats tend to be master and
willful manipulators; collectively, they regularly
lie, cheat and steal – why, to accomplish the
ultimate goal of getting and holding on to
POWER.
Politicians and bureaucrats are masters of
influencing people's perceptions of the costs and
benefits of governmental activities. Political
manipulation and deception has led to such
things as Social Security, income tax
withholding, federal control of public education
and health care, and, in the name of “war on
drugs” and “war on terrorism”, the systematic
surveillance and data collection of and about
ordinary Americans by the federal government.
It is sad because some of these people were quite
good folks, possibly just like you or me, and
then they got a job in a system that is grown
corrupt. They found out they couldn’t change the
system, as they thought they might, so they just
get sucked up into being part of the system, or
they leave.
For the most part, over time, we have been
seduced into surrendering our autonomy and our
unalienable rights by an ever-growing, now
monster-of-a-thing, federal government and
some day you may be “presented with the bill.”
What to do?
growing involvement in health care, education,
taxation and data collection – notice these
programs fail to deliver the social benefits that
their proponents promise – while all the time
robbing Americans.
Notice too how things just seem to keep on
getting bigger. When was the last time you heard
of a governmental entity or budget getting
smaller? Look at one of the largest enterprises
on the planet – the (so-called) Justice system.
This hungry monster now has an insatiable
appetite. One in every 32 adults in the United
States was either behind bars or on probation by
the end of the year 2001. The Government report
that delivers this information goes on to say that
a record 6.6 million people are in the nation’s
correctional system. What is going on here? The
system is huge and constantly hungry. There are
so many ancillary agencies and players (lawyers,
judges, etc.) that need feeding with human
carnage (i.e. accused, defendants, inmates,
parolees and the like.)
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly
governments; rights that cannot be repealed or
restrained by human laws; rights derived from
the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
John Adams, one of the Founding
Fathers, and second President of the United
States.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those
who falsely believe they are free."
Goethe
“All Truth passes through three stages, first, it is
ridiculed, second, it is violently opposed, and
third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
First: It's basically impossible for you to know
of, or much about, all the laws, rules, etc., much less abide by them. As an average Citizen
we tend to defer to those who do know, or claim
to know. This author thinks -- bad choice.
"I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I
couldn't do the things I wanted."
Frederick Douglass
And, as more citizens come to rely upon
government programs, the less likely they are to
agitate for reform, even when such reform is
needed. Social security, the federal government's
“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a
scarce man, brave hated and scorned. When his
cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for
then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”
Mark Twain
4
Chapter 1
Many of us are amazed to learn that there are
three (3) different and distinct definitions of the
phrase “United States.” (Hooven & Allison Co. vs.
Evatt, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 324 U.S. 652, 89 Led.
1252) The term “united states” is a metaphor. In
part, these two words can describe two different
areas of, or on, the north American continent.
First, the words “United States” are usually used
to describe the several states (political divisions
of land) that comprise the compact union of
states and home of the “federal government” that
came into being by way of the activities of many
and various people in the mid to late 1700’s.
“We the People…” simply began the original
constitution.
The document that is titled The Constitution of
the United States was signed in to being, in
convention, by the unanimous consent of twelve
of the thirteen original [colonies that became]
states present on Monday September 17, 1787.
George Washington was president and deputy
from Virginia. He becomes the first President of
the United States on April 30, 1789.
The Preamble of the [then] newly minted
Constitution reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.” It is important to remember
this preamble, as we will mention it again in this
writing. (Notice the words “of” and “for.”)
There have been a series of amendments
attached to the original Constitution over time,
the first ten are collectively called the Bill of
Rights brought on in 1791 as a way to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its [constitution’s]
power and as extending the ground of public
confidence in the [new] government.
It is beyond the scope of this writing to discuss
either the Constitution or its amendments in
5
depth. Dear reader you are well advised to seek
out a personal copy for your library and become
familiar with it. It is a very important document
in your life.
As we can see thus far, these united states (states
united, states joined, states getting together); the
union of several states made up the original
united States and since then several more have
come on to where now we have fifty (50.) Fortyeight of which are generally referred to as the
continental united States. (We could, and perhaps
better say the states united of America. Let’s not
forget Alaska and Hawaii.)
Known as the Republic, its flag is “Old Glory”
as defined in Title 4 of the United States Code,
Chapter 1, Section 1:
The flag of the United States shall be
thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate
red and white; and the union of the
flag shall be forty-eight stars, white
in a blue field. Section 2: On the
admission of a new State into the Union
one star shall be added to the union of
the flag.
The colors of the flag are symbolic: red
symbolizes Hardiness and Valor; White
symbolizes Purity and Innocence and blue
represents Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice.
This is the flag that preserves the Constitution,
the flag of peace, the flag that songs are written
about, the one we proudly hale, the one we show
to the world, the one we fly on Independence
Day and other holidays, and the one we salute!
Its the one many have suffered and died for. And
now it is the one we stand united with! A Title 4
flag represents you and I! As you can see in Title
4 any other flag is not the flag of the united
States of America.
Notice the flag behind the Speaker of the House
of Representatives in Washington, D.C. Do a bit
of research and observing in your city – look at
the flag flying in front of your local courthouse
and then go inside and notice the flag in any
courtroom. Do you see a gold fringe on the one
in the courtroom? A gold-fringed flag may look
pretty but it is a desecration of and not a Title 4
flag never the less. Do the flags with a gold
fringe also have a gold tassel? The gold tassel
signifies admiralty (jurisdiction.) Is there a gold
eagle, a gold spire or anything else on top of the
holding staff? The gold eagle represents the
President and should only be flown in the
presence of. The gold spire represents a Courtmartial (military court) and should only be flown
in the presence of such. Anything else? I was
always taught that nothing, except the heaven
(God/Creator), is to be atop the Flag. Anything
else desecrates the matter. Feel like being
desecrated today?
Also notice the people who wear a flag symbol
on their uniform. It is a pure or is it a desecrated
version of the flag of the united States of
America. If it is, in fact, a desecrated version –
just who do these people represent?
Notice your own state’s flag. Anything other
than the pure version (without gold adornment)
is not your state’s flag – it represents something
else. Don’t be mislead – “they” know what
“they” are doing. If you want to march to “their”
flag it is your right and prerogative. Just do so
knowingly and willingly.
--- … --31 USC
TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
SUBTITLE I - GENERAL
CHAPTER 1 - DEFINITIONS
Sec. 103. United States
In this title, ''United States'', when used in a
geographic sense, means the States of the United
States and the District of Columbia.
--- … ---
Now lets look at the other United States: Article
1, Section 8, clause 17 gives Congress authority
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases over
a ten square mile area known as the District of
Columbia (Washington, D.C.); and to purchase,
with the consent of any particular state’s
legislature, land within a state for use by the
federal government (for forts, magazines,
arsenal, dock yards, and other needful
buildings.) A corporate United States in the
same sense as Exxon, Mobile, Enron, etc.
Over time the federal government bought or
otherwise acquired such areas, termed
possessions, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, just to name some. These owned
land areas are the only areas that comprise the
corporate/federal UNITED STATES.
Dear reader, you may verify this – see Title 26
United States Code, which is the Internal
Revenue Code, Section 3306 (j)(2) “United
States. – The term ‘United States’ when used in
the geographical sense includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rice,
and the Virgin Islands.”
An aside note: it is important to notice that in the
United States Code (USC) terms are defined as to
provide meaning for the particular subject matter of
any particular code. The USC is available in law
libraries, may be available in your local library, and
is readily available on the Internet at
(http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm).
Currently there are 50 Titles. The Code spells
out the workings of the government. Each title
covers a specific topic and some are must-reads
for you if you are serious about things and
workings of the government. We will reference
various Titles in this writing.
Should there be any doubt regarding the
definition of the word “includes”, as it is used
here, the united States supreme Court, in the
case of Montello Salt Co. vs. State of Utah
clearly set forth that when the word “includes” is
used by the Internal Revenue Service, it is
definitely restrictive; and that anybody or
anything not named is to be excluded. As used
above, the word “include” does not refer to any
6
geographical areas that are not mentioned in 26
USC, Section 3306(j)(2). (Dear reader, the above
use of caps and no caps in court name is
correct.)
And if you think “they” aren’t aware of this may
I offer you this:
Title 26 USC (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE)
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible
with the intent thereof (1) Person individual, a trust, estate,
partnership, association, company or
corporation.
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a
geographical sense includes only the States and
the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include
the District of Columbia, where such
construction is necessary to carry out provisions
of this title.
--- … --Title 28 USC (JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL
PROCEDURE)
Sec. 1746 Unsworn declarations under penalty
of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or
under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement
made pursuant to law, any matter is required or
permitted to be supported, evidenced,
established, or proved by the sworn declaration,
verification, certificate, statement, oath, or
affidavit, in writing of the person making the
same (other than a deposition, or an oath of
office, or an oath required to be taken before a
specified official other than a notary public),
such matter may, with like force and effect, be
supported, evidenced, established, or proved by
the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification,
or statement, in writing of such person which is
subscribed by him, as true under penalty of
perjury, and dated, in substantially the following
form:
7
(1) If executed without the United States: ''I
declare (or certify, verify, or state) under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.
(2) If executed within the United States, its
territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I
declare (or certify, verify, or state) under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.
--- … --The reader may notice that this writing is
becoming heavy with reference to codes and
titles and things that the average person may not
be familiar with. The writer is not attempting to
bore, or otherwise burden, the reader with
unnecessary ink. Whenever dealing with items
of law and persons who use them one needs to
be precise and have knowledge of precedence
and use. In other words: if you feel that you may
use the stuff of this writing you’d better have a
working knowledge of what it is that you are
working with, be prepared to make claims, meet
challenges, and be able to stand-your-ground in
the “face of authority.” Without a solid
foundation any structure is bound to fall.
Didn’t I mention three (3) different and distinct
definitions of the phrase United States?
Sure did. And the third being: “…either as the
name of a sovereign occupying the position
analogous to that of other sovereigns in the
family of nations.” Living in the world today one
is constantly exposed to the term “United States”
and we and “they” presume and assume
[naturally] reference is being made to the united
states of [north] America – have you heard of the
United States of Mexico? If you lived there you
would. ¡Si! Have you heard about the European
union? Or is it the European Union (EU)?
It’s time for you to review your basic English
grammar on capitalization, nouns, and pronouns.
Words have meaning and how words are used
have meaning also. In things of, and relating to,
law and government words, phrases and
grammar matter a lot! And may not correspond
with the particular way you talk and think.
Chapter 2
Now let’s discuss ‘citizenship’. No doubt in
school you learned that slavery was something
practiced around the world and right here in
America for a time. Most of the Founding
Fathers held or otherwise owned [black] slaves.
The issue of slavery in America was very
divisive and in the year 1861 brought about the
American Civil War. Southern States wanted to
retain slavery and the Northern States did not. A
self-taught lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, from
Illinois, was nominated for president by the
(then very young) Republican Party in 1860 on a
moderate platform of restricting slavery. As a
result of his winning the election South Carolina
seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860.
With about 40% of the vote, Mr. Lincoln
became the 16th President on March 4, 1861.
(To be fair, slavery wasn’t the only issue that
divided the states, it was the very significant.)
A few days earlier, eighty-five years after the
Independence of the United States, on March 27,
1861, seven southern States of America walked
out of the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth
Congress. In doing so, the Constitutional due
process quorum necessary for Congress to vote
was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die.
(Latin for ‘without day’) Under rules of order,
prior to adjourning, members of Congress vote
on a specific day as when they will reconvene,
i.e. get back together again. Without the seven
southern states’ votes there was no quorum so
the remaining States could not vote and hence
the Congress dissolved. The United States was
without a Congress. (One may chuckle and think
that may be a desirable thing – however…)
Union Fort Sumter, in South Carolina, was
attacked by Confederate forces on April 12, thus
began the American Civil War.
As President, Mr. Lincoln issued an Executive
Order in April 1861 that called the Congress
back into session. However, he did not have
lawful authority or lawful due process of the
Constitution to do so. Solely in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the United States
military, Mr. Lincoln called the Congress into
session under authority of Martial Law. Ever
since April of 1861 ‘Congress’ has not met
based on lawful due process. Ever since Mr.
Lincoln’s Executive Order as Commander-inChief of the military we have had a ‘Congress’
that is a legal fiction. Ever since April 1861 we
have been not under rule of law but under rule of
rulership by force, or conquest, originating from
and existing in military, martial law jurisdiction.
(Bet you didn’t learn that in school.)
(Noted historian and writer Shelby Foote says of Mr.
Lincoln: “Almost everything he did was for effect.”
Ken Burns, The Civil War, 1989)
Mr. Lincoln is responsible for several other
things as well. I’m sure you note him as freeing
the slaves – story about that: Mr. Lincoln needed
money to fight the Civil War. The country of
France sided with the southern States and
commenced to build a fleet of boats designed to
break the blockade that Mr. Lincoln put in place
to economically ruin the southern States.
(The American Civil War was not a pretty
picture; in fact it was possibly the worst and
most in-humane undertaking of war ever in the
history of people on this planet. It was a time of
new weaponry and old procedures. New ways of
killing people and Officers using old and
antiquated combat tactics and procedures.
Brother killing brother – literally! When it began
most thought that it would be over in a few
months or less. Before those few months had
past most knew it was going to take much longer
and, because of the sever losses on both sides,
the basic attitudes of all concerned changed for
the worst.)
Mr. Lincoln needed all the help he could get. As
it would happen, [the country of] Russia said it
would come to the aid of Lincoln but one thing
stood in the way – slavery. The Russians were
against it. So, in order to get the much-needed
aid from Russia, Mr. Lincoln issued his now
famous Emancipation Proclamation. Once done,
the Russians stepped in, stopped the French from
building their blockade-breaking fleet and gave
Mr. Lincoln much needed money to complete
the war. (Later, in 1867, the geographical area
8
now known as Alaska was sold to the U.S. by
Russia. Some say to repay the Russians for their
aid to President Lincoln.)
With his Emancipation Proclamation, of January
1, 1863, Lincoln did free the [black] slaves by
freeing them from the condition of slavery; it did
nevertheless leave them in a condition of
servitude. At the close of the Civil War the black
man was the property of the United States
Government and he/she was right less. A black
[slave] of the time was told that if they wanted to
leave this country they could do so at any time
as they were [then] here voluntarily, however,
for as long as they chose to stay in the United
States they were in a condition of voluntary
servitude. One can only guess as to how many
had boat fare or even know where they might go.
As a group, black slaves were not educated or
taught much beyond the requirements of the
work they were to perform, this writer doubts
that they knew much, if anything, about the
world outside of where they lived and worked. It
was, as it is now, to the benefit of the
masters/rulers for slaves not to know much.
Times have not changed, as you will soon learn.
Lincoln was reelected in 1864, the South’s
General, Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9,
1865 and on April 14, 1865 Mr. Lincoln was
shot by actor John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s
Theater and died shortly thereafter.
As one can see, the issue of slavery is one that
has caused a lot of problems and turmoil over
time.
The Fourteenth Amendment was written to
secure to those under the incapacity of race,
newly freed from their condition of slavery, a
class of citizenship unknown in the
Constitutional contract of 1787. (Remember all
of the writers of the Constitution were white,
wealthy, landholding, men and some were also
slaveholders.) The first clause of the 14th
Amendment defines the term ‘citizen’ as: “All
persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and the State
wherein they reside.”
An interesting side note – before the, so-called,
slavery amendments beginning in 1865 the last
Amendment to mention the word “Citizen” is the
11th Amendment. In the 11th Amendment the
word, used twice, is capitalized, as I believe the
Founders wanted it to be – signifying Sovereign
status. In the following amendments the word is
not capitalized and Citizens, hence, were
reduced to subjects. (One might argue that this
was another way to retaliate against the South,
as the Northerners didn’t like the Southerner’s
aristocratic ways.)
Vice President Andrew Johnson succeeded to
the Presidency upon Lincoln’s death. Soon after,
he proclaimed an amnesty to all Confederates
(except certain leaders) if they would ratify a
Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. Not
happy with things like freed slaves, several
southern States added anti-Negro provisions to
the proposed 13th Amendment (which didn’t
attach.) During the Johnson administration, the
13th Amendment was added to the Constitution
in December of 1865.
In 1872 the supreme Court (Slaughter House
Cases) determined that the 14th Amendment
established (or ‘created’) a separate and distinct
class of citizenship for those under the capacity
of race; thus securing to the new class of citizen
/ subject the same privileges and immunities of
the native-born individual who was born in one
of the several continental sovereign states of the
Union.
Also during the Johnson administration, a
fourteenth amendment was proposed and
(supposedly) ratified in 1868.
This same type of privileged citizenship has
been since offered to persons, of all races and
circumstances. The contractual terms of this
citizenship require the individual to forfeit
native-born rights in exchange for securities,
privileges, protections, and liabilities granted by
(I use the word ‘supposedly’ as there is some debate
as to whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment was
9
actually ratified Not the purpose of this writing to
debate this issue.)
the United States Government
District of Columbia.)
(remember
Now any individual person such as you can
become subject to the jurisdiction of the
corporate United States either by volunteering
(i.e.; filing a IRS Form W-4 and/or 1040) or by
accepting benefits and privileges granted by said
corporate United States (Social Security,
welfare, subsidies, etc.) Since so many people
appear to have opted-in into the corporate United
States it is presumed that you specifically have
done so also. In law this is what is called a
rebuttable presumption. Which means that
unless you say otherwise it stands as truth.
(Remember, subjects don’t have rights – they
may have privileges.)
What can you do about it should you feel that
you are not a 14th Amendment citizen?
Consider learning more, and possibly
constructing and filing a AFFIDAVIT:
Certificate
of
Citizenship
as
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE stating in part
that you are NOT a legal “person” born or
naturalized in the federal “United States”, NOT
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
legislative democracy of the federal “United
States” (e.g., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa) or
any other territory, area or enclave “Within the
United States”. (Remember the terms “United
States” and “U.S.” are NOT to be construed or
assumed under any circumstances to imply or
include the sovereign “50 states” comprising the
“united states of America”) You can also state
your claim that you are NOT a born and
naturalized 14th Amendment citizen of or in the
District of Columbia (DC). That being said
therefore, you must be an “alien” with respect to
the federal “United States”.
It must be mentioned here that the I.R.S. doesn’t
believe a word just written and “they” want you
to act otherwise.
The author is aware that the above is considered
by some to be “mis-guided patriot dribble.” The
author didn’t just dream this stuff up – the reader
is advised to check it out.
The author is reminded of the story told about a
fellow named John Marshall. While John was
cleaning something in a creek nearby where he was
living at the time, he noticed something shinning in
the water. Closer examination revealed that is was
gold! John lived on the land that became known as
Sutter’s Creek in California, and in 1849 he started
the largest ‘gold rush’ the world has ever known. A
couple of years later, they found ol’ John, facedown,
in the same creek, penny-less. He hadn’t staked (i.e.,
stated) his claim! I’m sure the reader can speculate as
to what might have been had John ‘staked’ his claim.
The point here is that until you stake (state) your
claim you are no better than anyone else who hasn’t
and as far as “they” are concerned, you are just like
everyone else!
(Individually and the Law – there is matter for
discussion.)
"It is quite clear, then, that there is a
citizenship of the United States, and a
citizenship of a state, which are distinct from
each other and which depend upon different
characteristics or circumstances in the
individual". Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.
(16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)
"We have in our political system a government
of the United States and a government of each
of the several States. Each one of these
governments is distinct from the others, and
each has citizens of it's own..." United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"There is a difference between privileges and
immunities belonging to the citizens of the
United States as such, and those belonging to
the citizens of each state as such". Ruhstrat v.
People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
"There are, then, under our republican form of
government, two classes of citizens, one of the
United States and one of the state". Gardina v.
Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160
Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"The governments of the United States and of
each state of the several states are distinct
from one another. The rights of a citizen under
one may be quite different from those which he
has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252
(1935)
10
"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from
the fundamental or natural rights inherent in
state citizenship". Madden v. Kentucky, 309
U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All
persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof." The evident meaning of these last
words is not merely subject in some respect
or degree to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but completely subject..." Elk v.
Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)
Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the
concept is true concerning all federal citizens.
In other words, all federal citizens must be, by
their very definition, a person who is
"completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the
federal government (such as a citizen of
Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept
stated by the courts concerning a 14th
Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal
citizens.
"The privileges and immunities clause of the
14th Amendment protects very few rights
because it neither incorporates the Bill of
Rights nor protects all rights of individual
citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US
(16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead
this provision protects only those rights
peculiar to being a citizen of the federal
government; it does not protect those rights
which relate to state citizenship." Jones v.
Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226
"...the first eight amendments have uniformly
been held not to be protected from state action
by the privilege and immunities clause [of the
14th Amendment]." Hague v. CIO, 307 US
496, 520
the equation. Where at one time there was no real
problem with there being different classes of
citizenship, with the ratification of the 14th
Amendment, Congress went into overdrive with
civil rights legislation. The result was a labyrinth
of “rights” and protections for federal citizens.
Because a state Citizen is a member of “We the
People…” the people in whom the sovereignty of
the states, and by association, the national /
federal government resides, such a Citizen is left
to protect his/her own rights, with no special
process to help him accomplish that end. In short,
he must defend his rights with all his will, energy,
money, and passion in the courts for as long as it
takes to reach a final outcome.
Conversely, the federal citizen need only lodge a
complaint with the appropriate federal agency
and the power of the federal government moves
to punish the person who has allegedly violated
that federal citizen's rights. Of course this is
legally appropriate since a federal citizen is little
more than a ward of the national government.
Such second-class citizens must be cared for by
the government as they are not the masters of
their government, but mere servants to it, and it is
the master's responsibility to care for his servants.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
It should be noted that many of the rights not
attributed to federal citizens in the cases above
have since been granted to them either by
Congress or by the courts. These early decisions
simply clarify and solidify the reality that federal
citizens are not the same "class of citizen" as state
Citizens.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Like so many areas in which the corporate /
federal government has tread, it has unbalanced
11
Chapter 4
New terms: contract, rebuttable presumption and
alien.
Now that you have read this far you have had
presented to you what may be new concepts,
new ideas. Should you think the author to be in
error you can either toss this document and go
on about living your life as you have or you can
verify the presented information and work your
way to freedom. As this is a free-will universe
and when we reach the age of consent (generally
age 21) we are presumed to be acting on our
own volition whereby what we do is what we
want to do.
Let’s look at the word ‘contract.’ Briefly stated,
a contract is an agreement between two or more
parties. A ‘party’ may be an individual natural
person such as yourself, or a (corporate) person
such as a business or government. A contract
represents the most basic form of law on the
planet. A private contract supersedes any other
thing. It has been so since humankind began on
this planet. Picture two cave dwellers. One
agrees to hit the dinosaur on the head with a rock
and the other agrees to stick it with a large stick
– the object being dinner. One hits said dinosaur
with a rock and the other runs away. The
dinosaur is mad, eats the one who hit it with the
rock and walks away. The family of the
dinosaur’s dinner sues the one who ran for
breech of contract because of the damage
suffered. And thus began ‘law.’ Law of
Contract. “The contract makes the law.” 22 Wend.
215, 233.
Let’s look at ‘rebuttable presumption.’ A
rebuttable presumption is an idea or thought that
means that unless it is said otherwise it (the
presumption) stands as truth. Somewhere during
your life someone may have said things about
you that you either accepted or denied. You’re:
ugly, stupid, dumb, smart, intelligent, beautiful,
whatever; opinions for the most part. For
whatever reasons you either accepted them (you
allowed them to stand as truth) or you denied
them, rejected them, rebutted them. Had you
been trained to be skeptical and to analyze things
as to how they may be applicable to you – you
might have asked the person offering said
opinion to define what it was that they were
offering you. Then you may or may not have
accepted it and gone on from there. (There’s that
free-will concept again.)
Let’s look a the word ‘alien.’ The writer is most
willing to bet that there aren’t many kids who
don’t know what an alien is. The X-Files are
filled with mentions of aliens. Those pesky
beings from outer space that come here to play
hide and seek with us and to probe our most
private regions. And there are those [aliens, from
this planet] folks who come here from various
other [foreign] parts of the world because they
want a better shot at life than they were getting
from hence they came. Have you ever
considered yourself to be an alien?
Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758:
“The United States Government is a foreign
corporation with respect to a state.” –NY vs. re
Merriam 36N.E. 505; 141 N.Y. 479; affirmed 16
S.Ct. 1073; 41 L.Ed. 287.
Remember what said above: “We the people…
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America…” (or as may be read
another way: do ordain and establish this
Constitution for states United on the north
American continent.) And said Constitution’s
Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 giving Congress
authority to exercise exclusive legislation over
areas that make up the corporate / federal United
States.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
12
Chapter 5
these corporate, artificial entities the right to
own property.
Are we having fun yet?
Almost from the moment the U.S. Constitution
was written, the United States government has
“overstepped” the authority it was given by the
Founding Fathers of this country. Employees of
this corporation (politicians and bureaucrats)
have usurped power and authorities not
designated to them and have intentionally
deceived the Nationals of this country into
believing that they (the private people) are
citizen/subjects and must submit to its/their
jurisdiction.
Originally, all native-born people of this country
were known as Nationals, but with the advent of
the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal United
States gave these people the “opportunity” to
become GOVERNMENT Citizens. The federal
United States GOVERNMENT conferred Titles
of Nobility, on these NEW citizens, by granting
certain benefits, privileges, and securities to any
person who accepted this new citizenship.
Some say it is very important that we, as
individual private natural persons, NEVER
REFER TO OURSELVES AS “CITIZENS”.
The government, to indicate a person who owes
allegiance to the federal government and is
therefore subject to its jurisdiction uses the term
“citizen”. As you will find out later in this
writing, many words are used and construed by
the federal government to denote federal
citizenship. To admit to citizenship, one
SUBJECTS ONE’S SELF to federal jurisdiction.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment is often
referred to as the Amendment “that freed the
slaves”, it instead ENSLAVED the free. Because
the Constitution did not allow for a citizenship
comprised of people OUTSIDE of the white
race, it would appear that the purpose of this
amendment was to give the Negro race the same
rights and privileges as the native-born
nationals. In reality the purpose of this
amendment was to destroy the free native-born
people by creating corporations; and by giving
13
Through the years we have not been aware of the
real motive behind the Fourteenth Amendment
and thus have (some say FALSELY) been lead,
or allowed, to believe that we are ALL
Fourteenth Amendment citizens: i.e. persons
subject to the jurisdiction of the federal United
States owing an allegiance to same through
things like, and specifically, the federal income
tax.
The status of the American people (whether or
not they are SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the
federal United States) is critically important to
both the State and Federal court system today.
These courts want to construe each and every
one of us as a federal (Fourteenth Amendment
Citizen) in order to obtain Jurisdiction.
The main function of these government courts is
to keep people on “their” (the government’s)
straight and narrow path and collect revenue in
order to pay the national debt. They feel that the
only way that this debt can be “paid” is through
the taxing of the federal citizenry.
When gold and silver was taken from the hands
of the American people, by Executive Order in
1933, with complete disregard of the laws and
limitations of the u.S. Constitution, it “became
necessary” for the corporate United States to
“create” a new system of law. They threw out
common Law and Equity Law and switched it
for Admiralty/Maritime Law (Negotiable Law)
(now called Statutory Jurisdiction.)
Today, the courts we have are not courts of law;
they are courts of Commercial Contract.
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 10 gives
us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we
do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of
someone else. Contracts are enforceable. They
know that! It is felt by some that there exists
some base contract with you (other than the
Constitution) that they feel that they can act
upon. Some say it is the Application for a Social
Security Card (Form SS-5), some say it is the
bank signature card, and some say it is the
I.R.S.’s 1040 and W-4 forms.
Is this information is being held from us in order
to trick us into acquiescing to authority the
government doesn't have?
Our problem today is that most of us are
unaware that the courts, and “our” government
are operating on a “presumptuous” contract. An
assumption is made that you and I have accepted
government-granted benefits and privileges that
make us liable to the federal government of the
United States. Once this assumption is made and
we fail to dispute and deny said assumption, we
cause a presumption of contract.
In other words: if we don’t deny it, it must be
true.
IF WE DO, IN FACT, CONTRACT WITH
GOVERNMENT, WE ARE AND THEY ARE
COMPELLED TO PERFORM ACCORDING
TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.
The Uniform Commercial Code is the “law” that
the court is applying today in order to “gain”
jurisdiction of all citizens, regardless of their
status. While Common Law is based on
substance, the Uniform Commercial Code is
based on bankruptcy. (See THE AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION, (unbound, June, 1938)
“What has happened to Jurisprudence” by Allen
Fleming) (also see Appendix B)
From research, we are now aware that the U.S.
courts do not have jurisdiction over a natural
person (a living NATIONAL of one of the
several states of the Union.) But, because of our
ignorance (lack of information), we have been
misled to believe that we have lawful courts and
because of this misunderstanding, we are often
quick to agree when a judge says we are liable or
required to perform in a specific way.
The Uniform Commercial Code is “colorable”
Law. It is not law, but gives the appearance of
law; and it is upheld by the courts today as
LAW. In this “colorable” situation the court can
do as it wishes. To be on a jury in a U.S.
courtroom, an individual must be a “colorable”
person, (a 14th Amendment privileged person);
and
as
such,
he/she
is
not
competent/knowledgeable to judge the law.
Because these jurors are OUTSIDE of the
common law by their very status, they are only
allowed to judge the facts, and not the law.
The only reason that an individual is even
allowed to talk about the Constitution in court is
because the judges want to keep up a “smoke
screen” to keep us in the dark regarding what is
REALLY happening in court. Because our
public servants, who are employed by the federal
government have gone beyond the bounds of
their authority, it became necessary to put up
this “smoke screen” to mislead us into believing
we have Constitutional Rights.
When you demand your Constitutional Rights in
court, the judge will tell you that “ ...you will get
all of the Rights you deserve”, and then he will
go on to say that “the Right you are demanding
is NOT one of those Rights”; but he won’t tell
you what Rights YOU DESERVE. The “Rights”
he is referring to are the “Rights” of the business
world (the Uniform Commercial Code); and,
they are not Constitutional at all.
Here is where we have been making a mistake we are expecting to get common Law in a court
of Colorable Law. It’s time we study the
Uniform Commercial Code to find out what our
remedies are in this “colorable law.” The
Uniform Commercial Code is based on
negotiable instruments; a medium of exchange
(i.e. paper money, checks, credit, etc.) that is not
based on real substance like gold or silver.
Promulgated in 1952, and adopted by and into
law by all of the States by 1964, divided into
nine sections, the U.C.C. contains all
commercial methods of exchange.
When we, and our parents, failed to object to
this new system, we silently “agreed” to
exchange our labor (real substance) for valueless
money. By failing to object, we caused the
PRESUMPTION that we are persons (artificially
created) who agree to become SUBJECT to ALL
of the laws of the Uniform Commercial Code.
14
Thanks to the research done by many [patriots]
in this country, we have recently learned that
there is REMEDY to be found in this colorable
law. Go to a law library or on the Internet
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html)
and check the following Sections of the Uniform
Commercial Code: 1-207, 1-103, 3-305.2(c), 3601. These sections, and possibly others that I
am not yet aware of, are where you will find
remedy. These are the sections we are going to
have to use to assert our common law Rights.
UCC Section 1-207
PERFORMANCE OR ACCEPTANCE
UNDER RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
A party who with explicit reservation of rights
performs or promises performance or assents to
performance in a manner demanded or offered
by the other party does not thereby prejudice the
rights reserved. Such words as "without
prejudice", "under protest" or the like are
sufficient.
This means simply that when you find yourself,
because of incapacity, in a situation where it
appears that you are accepting a benefit or
privilege from government, when in fact you are
not; it is necessary that you first explicitly state
your reservation of rights, or protest. This is
necessary in order that it is understood that you
are not subjecting yourself to a specific
performance, or making yourself liable in any
way; that you have not knowing, intentionally,
and/or voluntarily entered into an unrevealed
contract with the federal government.
Example:
Sign Here:
John Doe
Without prejudice UCC 1-207
Today, because a fraudulent plastic imitation
15
rules rather than the real thing, Americans are
caught in a "catch-22" dilemma. If they want to
try to derive any protection or benefit from the
Constitution, i.e. the “government” created by the
Constitution and any of its innumerable aspects,
agencies, “laws,” rules, regulations, policies,
police, courts, military, etc., they must forfeit
their rights and freedom by declaring themselves
to be subject to (i.e. bound and enslaved by) the
Constitution. This is to say they must affirm the
validity of the Constitution in order to invoke its
use or protection. Only this nexus can provide a
basis for someone to assert that a contract exists
between himself and “his” government. One need
not expressly sign a contract or swear an oath to
be considered within a contractual nexus with the
State. Accepting any benefits or privileges from
any aspect of the State, subscribing to an
adhesion contract or forming an implied contract
between the individual and State, or even
executing a unilateral contract of gifting rights or
property to the State, generates a contractual
nexus. As per the maxim of law:
It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by
words or by acts and deeds. 10 Co. 52.
When adjudicated in State tribunals, any contract
between you and the State, whether implied,
adhesion, or unilateral, and all the terms,
conditions, rights, duties, ramifications, and
consequences thereof, is decided by the State for
the benefit of the State and to the express
detriment of yourself.
The above situation exists and is perpetuated by
all States against their people based upon the
State proclaiming legitimacy on the grounds that
all presumptions, and all unrebutted claims and
charges, stand as the truth and law unless
properly and timely refused, rejected, disavowed,
or rebutted. In the case of the people vs. the State
the presumptions upon which the State purports
the legitimacy of its authority to exist and
function include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the following:
1) Everyone is presumed to be a free will
sovereign with sole and exclusive right to
choose and act for him/her self;
2) Everyone is presumed to know the law
(“ignorance of the law is no excuse”);
3) Everyone is presumed, based upon the above
two criteria, to have submitted to the rule of
State by having knowingly, intentionally, and
voluntarily assented to the rule of State.
Not only do people not properly and timely
refuse, reject, disavow, or rebut the presumptions
of the legitimacy of State rule over them, but they
expressly agree to said rule by accepting benefits
from the State, e.g. voting, invoking protection of
State laws (such as working for a living with any
disputes between you and your “employer”
decided pursuant to the laws of the State and
adjudicated by its courts, enforced by its police,
etc.), acceptance of welfare and other illicit
largesse, Social Security, and even by using
private commercial paper called Federal Reserve
Notes (FRNs) as "legal tender" to pass as money
and use as “valuable consideration” in contracts
which the contracting parties execute between
themselves without owning the consideration they
purport to be contractually binding. *
The functions of State have been so vast and
pervasive that it is now virtually impossible to
breathe without “accepting” some “benefit” from
the State and therefore granting the State a basis
to evidence your alleged conscious intent to
acquiesce to its rule over you. As a result, life has
become a nightmare. The old adage that “the
price of liberty is eternal vigilance” has been
amplified to such colossal proportions that if one
spent a full 24 hours a day engaging in nothing
but endeavoring to identify and rebut the
presumptions of “benefit” the State claims you
accept and which therefore purport to entitle the
government to rule you, you would not begin to
be able to discern them all, despite the maxims:
government. Otherwise, one can never be a
clean, clear, and free being, i.e., Sui Juris.
Most people do not quickly object to accepting
perceived benefits. But if Americans in particular,
and the people of the world in general, perceived
the depths, extents, and severity of the
destructiveness and fraud perpetrated upon them
under guise of government “benefit”, the people
would shred the guilty parties into millions of bits
of flesh, bone, and sinew, and the wrath would be
considered utterly justified.
* Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64-92
(1938), where the supreme Court ruled that
“there is no federal general common law”, page
70, @ "Headnote 3," and “Congress has no
power to declare substantive [emphasis added]
rules of common law applicable to a State,
whether they be local or general in their nature,
be they commercial law or a part of the law of
torts.” page 64. There could be no more federal
general common law or substantive rules of
common law because the consideration on all
contracts used by everyone in the country was
non-substance, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)
belonging to the private Federal Reserve
Corporation and not to the countless Americans
executing contracts on a regular basis, whether
public or private. To use as “valuable
consideration”, and purport to be authorized to
bind, property that does not belong to oneself
renders oneself obligated to the owner of the
consideration, in this case the Federal Reserve
Corporation.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
For we ought to be helped by a benefit, not
destroyed by it. dig. 13. 6, 17. 3; Broom, Max
392.
No man is presumed to do anything against
nature. 22 Vin. Abr. 154.
Nevertheless, despite the practical difficulty,
only is everyone lawfully entitled to reject
State and all its myriad aspects and tentacles
is morally obligated to disengage from
not
the
but
the
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
16
Chapter 6
rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage other retained by the people.”
Before we go any further, it would be wise to
first discover some of the devious methods used
by agents of government to confuse the Natural
person (or National), into believing that artificial
persons and corporations have the same
fundamental, god/creator-given, rights as they
themselves have; or more important, to discover
how government has fraudulently twisted and
construed the meaning of words in order to gain
or steal our freedom, thereby placing us in a
position of government servitude.
Our forefathers, fearful of the imperial power of
a central government, sought to limit its powers
by adding the 9th and 10th amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was
added as a “Constitutional” wild card. In a card
game, the wild card is whatever you claim it to
be. Under the Ninth Amendment, you may claim
whatever Rights you want to - subject to the
approval of a common law jury.
In most cases, we were completely unaware of
this deception; or if we were aware of it, we did
not know that we had recourse and remedy to
correct the situation. In the following text, I will
try to list and explain a few of the corporate
United States intentional deceptions perpetrated
against NATIONALS of AMERICA and the
remedies found for these deceptions in the
Uniform Commercial Code.
First it must be understood that we do not have
Constitutional RIGHTS. The Constitution was
written for the public employee, in order for
him/her to know and understand her/his
LIMITATIONS of authority.
Like it or not, today the “Law of the land” is the
Uniform Commercial Code. Although we all
know that we have several fundamental
inalienable rights, these rights are completely
ignored by the United States courts as merit less
and inapplicable. They are merit less and
inapplicable because we have been asserting
them in the wrong forum. The only way to get
remedy in today’s court is through the Uniform
Commercial Code.
Once we have reserved our Rights through the
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207, we
can then start claiming our Fifth Amendment
Rights. Many patriots believe that an affirmative
approach is the proper position to take in the
United States' commercial courts. You might
even want to consider claiming the almost
forgotten Ninth Amendment Rights: “The
enumeration in the Constitution of certain
17
You do not have the right to deceive anyone; to
deliberately harm anyone; to impersonate a
government official or professional person in
order to gain what does not rightly belong to
you. These are selfish aspirations and not in the
interest of justice. No (common law) jury will
uphold these “Ninth Amendment Rights.”
As God-fearing people, we have divine
responsibilities. We are the silver bullets! We
are the people who will make a difference. We
are the people who will have to stand up for
what we believe; (and some may say) knowing
we are doing God's Will.
You will notice that in the US Code and in the
Internal Revenue Code certain words are
referred to as “terms.” The purpose of this
practice is to twist, and adjust, the meaning of a
particular word in order to confuse or deceive
the people at-large. For example, at the
beginning of each chapter of the Internal
Revenue Code, there is a list of words that have
different meanings from that, which is used, in
say, a common Webster's Dictionary. In defining
particular words in any particular title you will
see such wording as:
“When used in this title, where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible
with the intent thereof… the term __________
shall be construed to mean and include... “
“The term '' x y z'' has the meaning given such
term by section 1xx(a)(1).”
This type of wording alone should alert us that
something is amiss. Can an agency, or anyone
for that matter, change the meaning of words for
its own benefit? They might contend that it is for
clarity. We must be on the lookout for such
wording. If we don't understand a word, or
phrase, it is very important to research its
meaning in order to fully understand its intent.
Words and wording in legal stuff has specific
meaning. Jargon in any profession is meant to
help the practitioners of and in said profession
and generally has the intentional / unintentional
of keeping others away.
When you see such wording as “proposed
deficiency”, “imposed tax”, or “taxable income”
DON’T jump to the conclusion that these
phrases automatically make the person receiving
a letter containing these terms, a LIABLE
PERSON. If you haven’t already voluntarily
submitted to Internal Revenue Service's
jurisdiction, does said agency have the authority
to “impose” anything on you? Isn't it possible
that this agency is making presumptions
regarding your “liability” with intent to seduce
or harass you into submitting to its presumed
“authority”?
Did you know that in Title 26 USC the Internal
Revenue Code the terms “CITIZEN”,
“RESIDENT”, “TAXPAYER”, “PERSON”,
“DRIVER” and “INDIVIDUAL” all have the
same meaning? These terms denote artificial
entities (or TITLES of NOBILITY) that have
made themselves subject, by accepting
governmental benefits, to the jurisdiction of the
federal UNITED STATES.
The imposed tax in this case is not on the people
themselves but on the privileges made available
to the” citizen”, “resident”, taxpayer”, or
“driver.”
When you bought your house with little green
pieces of paper you gave nothing of value, so
you only receive use of the property; thus the
reason for the property tax. The property tax
signifies your rent for its use.
When you use Federal Reserve notes you accept
the PRIVILEGE of getting by without paying
debt and the SECURITY of having LIMITED
LIABILITY of the national debt.
Residency itself is not a privilege, but the things
that come along with it are, the privileges and
benefits, i.e. fire and police protection,
The privileges connected to these Titles of
Nobility are what attaches the liability.
These terms indicate a citizenry that has
SUBJECTED itself to the jurisdiction of the
federal government by accepting the grants and
privileges of a foreign government. Such grants
or privileges can also be disguised as
WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, COLLEGE
GRANTS (or government loans), privileged
professional LICENSES (verifying
your
integrity and expertise); and, in the case of the
DRIVER’S LICENSE, the privilege of doing
what you already had the right to do before; to
move from one point to another unencumbered.
If you ask permission do something or to receive
something you have caused another individual
(in this case, an agent of government) to make
the presumption that he/she, somehow, has the
authority to grant or deny your wishes. Ask and
you will receive - but at the expense of your
freedom to live your own life as you see fit.
To continue, corporate State governments
construe the words (terms) “ADDRESS” and
“RESIDENCE” to have the same meaning;
when, in fact, they are quite different. The term
‘residence’ is a term for a commercial corporate
address; a privilege given by the State. When
you fill out a State’s Driver’s License
application, and you fill in the space where it
asks for your “Address or Residence”, you cause
the presumption that you are a privileged
corporate entity; and, therefore, are subject to
the jurisdiction, and tax, of the corporate State
where you live.
When a State or Federal application asks if you
are a United States Citizen, and you answer
“YES”, you unknowingly subject yourself to the
jurisdiction of the United States government by
“causing” the PRESUMPTION that you are
ONE OF THEIRS.
18
The STATE OF TEXAS is a corporate citizen.
When you find yourself in a courtroom situation
in which you are the accused and the STATE OF
TEXAS (or the STATE OF [ your state ] ) is the,
plaintiff; you are, for all purposes, up against
another State Citizen. This state “became” a
citizen (or “injured party”) via its corporate
status. The preposition “of” is the connecting
word. CONNECTING this state to the Federal
Government and subjecting this corporate entity
to Federal jurisdiction.
manufactured by a privileged corporation (i.e.
contractual agreement to buy an automobile.)
In order to provide for our own personal needs,
we often find ourselves in a position wherein we
are INCAPABLE of preventing a false
PRESUMPTION on the part of the FEDERAL
United States or the CORPORATE individual
State in which we live. In these situations we
must conduct business under PROTEST and
WITHOUT PREJUDICE according to UCC 1207.
STATE OF TEXAS = corporate citizen
Texas state / Republic = We the People…
(Preamble People)
Do we, as one of “We the PEOPLE…” have any
remedy or recourse? Can we protect ourselves
against the fraud that has been perpetrated and is
being perpetrated twenty-four hours a day, every
day of the year by the CORPORATE United
States?
The following situations are instances in which
you might find yourself in a position wherein
you are incapable of finding recourse or remedy.
1. Overcoming the PRESUMPTION made by
corporate government that you are a contributing
party to the “bankruptcy” of this country because
of your use of paper negotiable instruments.
(i.e.: Federal Reserve notes, bank checks, etc.,
money orders, credit cards, etc.)
2. Overcoming the PRESUMPTION made by
corporate government that you are “accepting”
government-granted privileges benefits, and
securities by partaking in the following:
• use of the United States Postal Service by
being in possession of a residence or address,
use of state name abbreviations, etc.;
• use of a government-operated
communication system: i.e., the telephone
system;
• use of any government-owned utility: i.e.,
The Tennessee Valley Authority;
• being a third party fiduciary to a 'foreign'
corporation by investing in any product that is
19
To avoid any misunderstanding on the
government's part as to whether or not we are
subjecting ourselves to its jurisdiction, we take
an affirmative action regarding these false
presumptions. Whenever you find yourself in a
courtroom situation or when signing any paper
or document (instrument) pertaining to, or sent
by, any governmental or corporate agency sign
with RESERVATION OF RIGHTS with one or
more of the following reservations:
“Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207”
“Signed without prejudice pursuant to UCC
1-207”
“With Explicit Reservation of all rights. UCC
1-207”
Paper Money (or other privilege); a governmentgranted privilege; 'benefit' used without
prejudice UCC 1-207
According to the UCC…
Liability of ALL parties to a contract is
DISCHARGED if any party has no right of
action or recourse. If remedy is not allowed in a
contract, (such as the presumed contracts
mentioned above), THERE IS NO ACTUAL
CONTRACT.
For an example, pursuant to the Uniform
Commercial Code, a “contract” can be
discharged in situations where a natural person
does not, knowingly, intentionally, and
voluntarily enter into said contact; thereby, he is
unaware of any presumed terms or liabilities.
This is often the case in the filing of the Internal
Revenue 1040 form. If we don't know who we
are, (our status with regard to the FEDERAL
United States), how can we possibly know if we
are a “person made liable for the income tax.”
In all likelihood, you executed and signed your
first 1040 income tax form when you were
under-age and because your parents told you it
was a requirement. They probably did not tell
you whether it was a requirement for all people,
or whether it was a requirement only for the
people who chose to intentionally subject
themselves to governmental servitude. Your
father mostly likely told you EXACTLY what
was previously told to him; and neither of you
asked “HOW YOU WERE MADE liable.”
1. Could such a “contract” be considered a
BINDING contract?
2. Wouldn’t such a “contract” be considered
to be one that was “entered” into under
DURESS, or one that was “entered” into under
undue influence because you were coerced or
otherwise falsely mislead into believing that
you had an obligation to do so?
Because of circumstances such as this, we must
know who we are, and how we fit in (or don't fit
in) with the corporate government. As the saying
goes: WE HAVE TO FIND OURSELVES! If
we don't know who we are, how can we expect
others to know?
Native-born people (NATIONALS of one of the
continental states of the Union) are not affected
by federal/corporate government; unless of
course, they choose to be via a contract or
agreement.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are different
and distinct United States, and one does not
affect the other, except through contract or
agreement. They are each foreign to the other.
Because of fraudulent practices of the players in
the federal United States (politicians and
bureaucrats), we must (as private Nationals,
private natural persons) assert our Sovereign /
alien status in order to prevent this foreign
corporate government from falsely presuming
that we somehow come under its jurisdiction.
26 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1-1
states at (A) that:
“the Code imposes an income tax on the
3. Wouldn't such a “contract” be considered
to be one that was “entered” into by mistake,
because you were not knowledgeable
regarding ALL the terms and liabilities of such
a contract?
income of every individual who is a
citizen or resident of the United
States and, to the extent provided by
Section 871(8) or 877(b), on the income
of a non-resident alien individual.”
4. Couldn't such a “contract” be found to be
fraudulent in nature?
Now, if we are foreign to the corporate United
States because of our NATIONAL status, then
we obviously ARE alien to this United States for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.
5. Couldn't such a “contract” or agreement be
DISCHARGED
because
of
DURESS,
COERCION, undue/untrue influence, mistake,
or FRAUD?
If you find you have no right of action or
recourse against the government because they
are attempting to impose an unlawful tax, use
UCC, section 3-601.2 to DISCHARGE the
presumed “liability.”
“Liability DISCHARGED without prejudice,
pursuant to UCC 3-601.3”
Section 1.871-1 states the manner of taxing alien
individuals:
“(A) Classes of aliens. For purposes of
the income tax, alien individuals are
divided generally into two classes,
namely,
resident
aliens
and
nonresident aliens -(B) Classes of non-resident
(1)
In general. For
the income tax,
alien individuals
aliens purposes of
non-resident
are divided
20
into
the
classes;
following
three
(i) Non-resident alien individuals who
at no time during the taxable year are
engaged in a trade or business in the
United States, and… ”
Knowing that you are an American National you
must now determine if you have engaged in a
U.S “trade or business” which could make you
subject to the corporate United States. The
answer to this question will determine whether
or not you are a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien.”
Even though you are not living within one of the
federally owned territories, you could still be
considered “ONE OF THEIRS” if you are
engaged in “resident business” thereby
conducting business via a corporate license or
government privilege.
If you qualify as a native-born, non-regulated
individual who is FOREIGN to the legislative
and territorial jurisdiction of Congress you are a
NON-RESIDENT alien for taxation purposes. If
you work in private enterprise, your earnings are
not U.S. source, nor effectively connected with a
U.S. source. If you meet these requirements,
YOU ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE of the
jurisdiction of Congress and the Internal
Revenue Service.
You may not qualify to be a taxpayer.
The U.S. Government's power and authority is
limited to naturalized Fourteenth Amendment
Citizens and individuals who have volunteered
to make themselves SUBJECT to the jurisdiction
of the FEDERAL United States, i.e. the District
of Columbia. Unless you volunteer to become
subject to its jurisdiction you are, for purposes of
Congress and the Internal Revenue Code, a
NON-RESIDENT ALIEN!
Once you know who you are, you can assert
your rights. In the courts and with regard to any
governmental agency, those RIGHTS can be
found in the Uniform Commercial Code.
21
With regard to SEIZURES, the Internal Revenue
Service is LIMITED as to whose property they
can seize. Title 26 USC Sections 7301, 7302,
5335(2) and 6331 are the sections that state who
the government can levy and put seizures upon.
Check them out for yourself – you may find that
NONE OF THESE SECTIONS APPLY TO
YOU.
These sections are relevant to the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), section 301.633.2-1
which clearly states that the Internal Revenue
Service can only levy government held property
of EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS of the
GOVERNMENT.
Now remember, if you are engaged in a
privileged corporate business that is effectively
connected to the federal United States you are
considered a resident (or resident alien); and you
are an EMPLOYEE or OFFICIAL OF
GOVERNMENT.
Have we previously been under the
misconception that we were subject to such
seizures? Were we “fraudulently” led to believe
that we are a federal citizen of the United States,
Were we “fraudulently” led to believe that we
had an obligation to incorporate our business, or
get a State License; and because of this, have we
subjected ourselves to the jurisdiction of the
United States (corporate) Government. If you do
not, knowingly, voluntarily, and/or intentionally,
enter into such a contract can you be held liable?
Wouldn't such a chain of events constitute
“FRAUD” on the government's part; and
mistake, acting under duress, and/or undue
influence on your part? Wouldn't such a chain of
events leave you WITHOUT ACTION or
RECOURSE?
DISCHARGE
this
presumed
liability
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to
Uniform Commercial Code 3-601.3
Because of the United States government's
possible fraudulent behavior, and because of our
incapacity
(being
unable
to
prevent
government's FALSE presumptions), any contact
that we may have with this government must be
UNDER DURESS and must be conducted
ambiguous1y. UCC 1-103 gives you a way back
to the real law:
“I don't accept these benefits openly; if I have
received a benefit, it was 'received' ambiguously
because of the fraud in the essence.”
Never admit to accepting a benefit! Although
you might be forced to “receive” it, or “use” it
because of a governmental monopoly; never
refer to this incapacity as an acceptance.
ACCEPTANCE denotes a voluntary action.
“I would not have accepted a benefit if I had
known the ramifications of the presumed
agreement.”
Notes: _____________________________________________________
Let it be known that you do not accept their
“benefit” openly and voluntarily. (Obviously, in
order to survive you sometimes find yourself in
the position of “receiving” the corporate benefits
of government-owned utilities, governmentgrown produce, government-raised protein, and
many
other
government-manufactured
merchandise.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
“Receipt” of government “benefits” is under
PROTEST, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-207 and 3305.2(c)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
The following are more examples of situations
wherein we can DISCHARGE fraudulent
“liabilities” placed upon us by government:
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
1. The necessity of doing “business” with
one or more government corporations
because of incapacity.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2. Because the government exchanged gold
and silver for valueless paper money they
have “gained” access to your property.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
3. Because this is the only medium or
exchange made available to me, it has
“caused” the country and its people be
become “indebted” to government.
STATE the FOLLOWING: “If I give the
appearance of being indebted to the government,
it is because I am left without action or
recourse.”
NO
REMEDY
AVAILABLE
“Liability” DISCHARGED pursuant to UCC
Sections 3-305.2(c) and 3.601.3
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
22
Chapter 7
The author acknowledges the power of the
Uniform Commercial Code and warns the reader
that to use anything in this writing without a full
understanding is akin to picking up a newfound
gun, randomly pointing the weapon and pulling
the trigger. Without training, use of the UCC,
like the gun, could be dangerous.
An UNSUBSTANTIATED, or UNVALIDATED
property tax bill, traffic ticket, or income tax
demand
is
nothing
more
than
a
PRESENTMENT; a presentment that is offered
to you for your consideration. Once you learn
the proper procedure per the Uniform
Commercial Code, you can dishonor and
DISCHARGE the invalid “bill.” How can you be
guilty of a demand for money?
They write the brochures to say that they "ask"
for a fingerprint (not "demand" as a condition of
payment). Their excuse for the fingerprint is
"reasonable identification." So if you can get
them to agree that your picture ID is reasonable
identification, they have NO LAWFUL
EXCUSE for refusing to pay the check just
because you don't give them a fingerprint! In this
case they have "dishonored" the check and you
can proceed exactly as you would if they
blatantly, and for no reason, refused to pay
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
You have three (3) days to revoke or deny the
presumed liability via a NOTICE Of
DISHONOR. If you fail to dishonor the
presentment you [automatically] ACCEPT it and
become liable for the fine.
___________________________________________________________
(Refer to:
§ 3-501 PRESENTMENT;
§ 3-502 DISHONOR;
§ 3-503 NOTICE OF DISHONOR;
§ 3-504 EXCUSED PRESENTMENT AND
NOTICE OF DISHONOR; and
§ 3-505 EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Do you know that a bank cannot legally require
a fingerprint as a condition of cashing a check?
According to UCC 3-501(b)(2), they can only
require you to:
• Exhibit the instrument (i.e. you show them
the check)
• Give reasonable identification, and evidence
of your authority if you are cashing the check
on behalf of someone else
• Sign the check, and make a written receipt
for partial payment, or the surrender of the
check upon full payment (i.e. you let them
keep the check)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
23
Chapter 8
In order to dissolve any UNSUBSTANTIATED
PRESUMPTION or assertion made by the
government, you should make a statement such
as the following in order to qualify your position
regarding their presumption that you are
“accepting benefits from government.”
STATEMENT FOR COURT TO SET
YOURSELF UP PROPERLY UNDER THE
UCC – STOP THE FRAUD BY STATING:
“FOR THE RECORD: The natural person
before you in the instant case says and shall
continue to state: My Christian name is John
and my Family name is Doe – properly spelled
capital letter “J”, lower case letters “o”, “h”,
“n”, space, capital letter “D”, lower case letters
“o’, “e”. I am a private national state Citizen, a
natural person, a preamble north American
national domiciled on the land in Texas
Republic, a Union state. I am not a citizen,
resident, officer or employee of the federal
United States nor any of its possessions,
enclaves, forts, etc., I am not a Fourteenth
Amendment citizen; I am not a citizen of any
corporate conglomerate State government; I
have not knowingly, willing/intentionally, or
voluntarily made myself subject to the colorable
law jurisdiction of the United States in the
corporate monopoly of the Federal and/or the
State Governments; for purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code I am a non-resident alien. Any
contract that may be in place concerning me is
so under color-of-law and false presumptions,
must be under threat, duress and/or coercion,
and must be conducted ambiguously.
“I do not accept benefits thereof openly; if I
have received a benefit, it was ‘received’
ambiguously because of the fraud in the essence.
I would not have accepted a benefit if I had
known the ramifications of the presumed
agreement. I do not accept said benefit openly
and voluntarily.
“I am therefore not subject to or in the
jurisdiction of the colorable law jurisdiction of
the United States in the corporate monopoly of
the Federal and/or State of Texas Governments.
“If it appears that I have received any ‘benefits’
from the government, they were ‘received’
without prejudice under UCC 1-207. If I give the
appearance of being indebted to the government
in any way, it is because I am left without action
or recourse. – NO REMEDY AVAILABLE.
Therefore:
“Liability DISCHARGED, without prejudice,
pursuant to UCC 1-207, 3-305 and 3-601
“FOR THE RECORD: I am NOT willing to
participate in the federal United States
bankruptcy that is being administrated against
me and my fellow American citizens WITHOUT
my prior knowledge and consent. I am NOT
willing to APPEAR in an equity, maritime or
admiralty jurisdiction court, WITHOUT my
ACCUSER and/or CREDITOR present, and/or
WITHOUT the specific signed and authorized
American or international contract presented as
evidence of my voluntary consent.”
Reference:
1-207 A party who with explicit reservation of
rights performs or promises performance or
assents to performance in a manner demanded
or offered by the other party does not thereby
prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as
“without prejudice”, “under protest” or the like
are sufficient.
3-305 c) An obligor is not obliged to pay the
instrument if the person seeking enforcement of
the instrument does not have rights of a holder
in due course. d) In an action to enforce the
obligation of an accommodation party to pay an
instrument, the accommodation party may assert
against the person entitled to enforce the
instrument any defense or claim in recoupment
under subsection (a) that the accommodated
party could assert against the person entitled to
enforce the instrument
3-601 The obligation of a party to pay the
instrument is discharged as stated in this Article
or by an act or agreement with the party which
would discharge an obligation to pay money
under a simple contract.
24
Chapter 9
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Social Security Act (1938) is a benefit; and
a person in possession of a Social Security
Number (SSN) is presumed to have entered into
contract with the Government willingly.
Notice the author slipped a couple of new things
in this writing?
In Chapter 8, the “STATEMENT FOR COURT”
section, the spelling of name was mentioned.
How do you spell your name? Look at the
spelling of your name on the Social Security
card you may have. Notice how your name is
written on anything from the Government – ALL
CAPITAL LETTERS. Do you spell or write you
name that way? Do you find the all-capital
letters portrayal of your name to be proper
grammar? (Even if English was not your best
subject in school - probably not.) Should you
suspect that perhaps they are referring to
another? The answer is: YES!
Whenever you see your name spelled in allcapital letters know that it is a fiction created by
the Government to trick you into doing things
you may not need to be doing or want to be
doing. Remember your Rights including the
free-willed concept mentioned earlier. While
some people may find this difficult to understand
at first – it is still, never the less, true – and very
important.
Whenever you receive anything with your name
spelled in all capitals letters you are acting, by
“accommodation”, for what is known as your
“strawman.” A strawman/strawperson is a
(fictional) transmitting utility between things, in
this instance, you and the Government. If you
answer when your strawman’s name is called,
you are presumed to be him/her. (Test: say your
name in lower case and then in all-capital
letters.) Question now is: Are you your
strawman?
Not!
The UCC addresses such a thing in 3-419
Instruments Signed For Accommodation, which
25
says that documents can be considered valid
when they are signed by accommodation. This
means that if you answer for your strawman you
can also sign for him as well. And under UCC it
is considered legal/legitimate.
Getting back to the Social Security thing for a
moment – do you have a Social Security number
– or does your strawman? Did you know that
you can go in person and request a copy of the
original form (SSN-5) that you signed on with
the Social Security Administration? (See their
website: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/ Search
Text: original ss-5 forms) Yes, you can request
it and it takes two to four weeks for them to
retrieve it for you and it costs $27.00 interesting reading. It gets even more interesting
when you get back a document that doesn’t even
bear your signature. How so you ask? Today,
new mothers are told that they cannot leave the
hospital, after birthing, without signing their new
baby up with Social Security. Why? (One
wonders – according to SSA Pub No. 05-10055,
August 2000, “…the Social Security Trust Fund will
be exhausted in 2037.”)
As you may be beginning to suspect this thing is
larger than the scope of this writing. And as you
may also be beginning to think – this has itself
involved in most every aspect of your life – and,
even after you leave this planet, your estate,
probate, etc.
Because most people are not aware of the
fraudulent ramification surrounding possession
of a Social Security Number (or Taxpayer’s
Identification Number); or because they are not
aware of how to assert their rights (through
UCC), “obligations” and liabilities” do attach.
A derivative of a name is not the legal name.
Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U. S. 47 (1893)
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Chapter 10
Now some may want to seek the advice of a
lawyer/attorney. Consider this: The American
Bar Association was established in this country
just after the Civil War.
(There are those who refer to it as the British
Accreditation Registry as it has its connections to
England.)
From their website (http://www.abanet.org/): the
American Bar Association, the largest voluntary
professional association in the world. With more than
400,000 members, the ABA provides law school
accreditation, continuing legal education, information
about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges
in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal
system for the public.
Nevertheless it is the legal profession’s labor
union. One particular view is that it was brought
about as a system of general slavery to replace
the old system of black slavery, by guaranteeing
a monopoly of the courts for attorneys, judges,
and municipal corporations (city, county, and
State.) As a labor union it is quite strong. Notice
the absence of instruction of Law in the public
schools. (And they say ignorance of the Law is
no excuse.) Notice that only union (BAR)
attorneys are legally able to give legal advice.
Notice, you can only represent yourself or be
represented by a BAR member in a court
situation. (This converts the courts into a closed
union shop.) All this corresponds to pre-civil
war time wherein black slaves were not taught to
read and were not allowed to get a public
education lest they become strong enough to
speak out against their repression (and possible
overthrow their slave-masters.) Notice that the
BAR Associations act in violation of anti-trust
and anti-monopoly laws.
On the issue of “attorney” – the word “attorney”
comes from the word “attorn” which means to
turn over as in exchange/transfer from one
owner to another. In old English law
“attornment” referred to the turning over or
transfer of tenants (peasants / lower class), on
the land, from the old Lord (aristocrat / upper
class) to the new Lord without disturbing the
class structure – a treaty so-to-speak, a peaceful
method of maintaining a noble class acceptable
to the common people. They (the peasants) may
not have liked it, but they accepted it. (“Here
comes the new boss just like the old boss” – as
the song goes.) Attornement was a method of
guaranteeing an unequal protection of the law
from the rich and the poor. An attorney’s role in
the system was to provide the ceremony of the
acquiescence of the poor and to do so in a
manner as to preserve and maintain the class
structure, the peaceful unequal protection of the
law. Is it any wonder as why attorneys rank low
on the list of people most liked and trusted?
Attorneys practice attornment, the passing of
property from one (you) to another.
A lawyer, on the other hand, is a person learned
in the law, one who understands law and who
loves the law for its capacity to rectify the evils
of society. One who both professes and practices
liberty and justice for all and therefore the equal
protection of the law. Lawyers practice law. As
we have learned, the united States Constitution
provides many (over thirty) guarantees of the
equal protection of the law. A lawyer supports
those provisions of guarantee – an attorney
opposes those provisions. In America a lawyer
obeys the Constitution; an attorney does not.
State Bar Associations accept both for
membership and as there are both the good and
the bad in most anything, there are lawyers who
practice attornment and attorneys who practice
law. Until now, you, as most people do,
probably thought the terms lawyer and attorney
mean the same thing. Even the professionals call
themselves “Attorneys-at-Law” which is a
contradiction. A test may be as to whether or not
a particular professional will file charges against
a Judge for failure to protect Constitutional
rights, an attorney will not. When it is necessary,
a lawyer will act as a substitute and even go to
jail for a cause believed to be right, whereas an
attorney will ask to be removed from a case were
the going gets rough and becomes a battle,
running, if you will, from the face of the enemy.
As said earlier: They like to say ignorance of the
Law is no excuse for wrong action; that all
persons are presumed to know the difference
between right and wrong, hence to know the
law. If that were true, there would be no reason
26
for public education in law and the practice of
law; no reason to have law schools; no reason as
why people, like yourself, could not “practice
law without license”; no reason as to why an
average person should or could not sit beside a
friend in court and to act as council to them.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
One of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson,
said that the common people should be able to
“practice law without a license” and to be able to
do so, they should be given a public education in
law. This author believes that, in this, Thomas
Jefferson was a wise person worthy of being
emulated.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
27
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Chapter 11
The Question of Jurisdiction
You must know who you are and how your
status fits in and doesn’t fit in with State and
Federal Government.
In order that you separate yourself from “their”
jurisdiction consider your mailing address.
Question: What is your address?
You may answer 1234 Maple Street, Any-town,
Any-State and the zip code attached.
Now consider this – can you sell, trade, or give
away the particular address or zip code? No, it is
not your property – the street address belongs to
the municipal government in which it is located
and the ZIP Code belongs to the U.S. Postal
Service. Is the ZIP Code necessary for mail
delivery? Don’t think so.
Are you a res-ident? ‘Res’ is a very interesting
word. Simply it means ‘thing’ – however, I
suggest you look it up in a legal dictionary such
as Black’s – available in most libraries. And, of
course, you recognize the word ‘ident’ as in
identification. Put them together and what do
you have? Resident = thing identification. Are
you resident? Become familiar with the terms
“residence” and “domicile” – I feel you will
begin to think, act and say things differently.
Consider this
[scheme]:
[more
proper]
addressing
That is a “c/o” in front of your street number,
“c/o” as in care of. You could actually use the
words “in care of” or just “care of.” Important
thing to notice here is that you, as a non-resident
alien and foreign national American to the
corporate government, may receive mail in care
of the so-stated address.
You do not “accept” (per UCC) mail put into
your postal reception box/slot -- you only
“receive” it there; and, that you may “receive” it
without prejudice per UCC 1-207.
Also, use the full spelling of everything, street,
lane, cove, north, south, etc. as abbreviations are
a benefit and also copyrighted by the U.S. Postal
Service.
The Post Office (corporation) assumes all mail
to be DOMESTIC until you give NOTICE (per
UCC) otherwise. Therefore insert the phrase
“Non Domestic” as shown
Remember that the above example is for both
sending and receiving. Have a rubber stamp
made or have your envelopes printed
accordingly.
It works just fine with the Post Office and it
begins to separate you from “them.”
The USE of the two letter state abbreviation is
also a ‘benefit.’ Always spell out the name of
your state (even if it is Mississippi, California,
etc.) Be proud of your state, you don’t go around
saying MS, CA, TX or the like do you?
On ZIP Codes…
I am a natural person domiciled on the land in
the Texas republic. Mail reaches me at the
following address:
Your Name (remember, spelled in proper form, uppercase first letter, lower-case others.)
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
Non-resident / Non Domestic
First Class, U.S. Delivery
c/o 12340 Maple Street
Austin, Texas state
[ 78700-0000 ]
Use of the Commercial ZIP Code is voluntary
(see Domestic Mail Manual section 122.32) and
also a ‘benefit.’
In the above example the bracketed ZIP Code is
for courtesy purposes only. Some enlightened
people are choosing not use the ZIP Code at all.
The Post Office (not Postal Service) can find
someone almost anywhere and do so without a
ZIP Code. An address with a ZIP code number
creates a Federal Jurisdiction, Market Venue, or
28
Revenue District that overrides state boundaries.
Use of this ZIP code number is a ‘benefit’ and
takes you outside of the state venue with
Constitutional protections and moves you into
the international, commercial venue, involving
admiralty concerns of the corporate United
States. The United States Government is a
commercial
corporation
domiciled
at
Washington, D.C.
You may consider preparing and filing an
AFFIDAVIT: Certificate of Citizenship as
Administrative Notice. It will help in
establishing just who you are.
Look up the word “artifice” in a legal dictionary.
Perhaps, from time-to-time, you may find an
artifice, or two, in your mail reception box.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
Visit your local Post Office and look at the 2001
National Five-Digit Zip Code & Post Office
Directory. The first sentence of the explanatory
paragraph says: “A ZIP Code® is a numeric
code that identifies areas within the United
States and its territories…
ZIP Code®
alignments do not necessarily adhere to
boundaries of cities, states, or other
jurisdictions.” Question begs to be asked:
United States and its territories? Certainly looks
like the corporate United States here. Let’s look
at another United States Postal Service
publication – the International Mail Manual.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
IMM Issue 23, July 1, 2000
___________________________________________________________
792 Definition of Terms (page 245)
___________________________________________________________
792.1 Resident
A resident of the United States includes any firm
that has a place of business in the United States
or is incorporated or otherwise organized in the
United States, its territories, or its possessions.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
711.1 What Is Subject To Examination
(page 211)
All mail originating outside the customs territory
of the United States (i.e., outside the 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) is
subject to customs examination…
As you may see, they recognize the difference.
An interesting side note: the ZIP Code directory
is fully copyrighted with notice on every page
whereas the IMM is not copyrighted. The ZIP
Code directory goes on to say: “How the ZIP
Code ® benefits you …’; so they tell us that the
ZIP Code is a benefit.
29
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Constitution for the United States of America
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the
same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United
States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and
in such inferior courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish. The judges,
both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold
their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services, a
compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all
cases, in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to
controversies to which the United States shall be
a party;--to controversies between two or more
states;--[between a state and citizens of another
state;]--between citizens of different states;-between citizens of the same state claiming lands
under grants of different states, and between a
state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states,
citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those in which a state
shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,
with such exceptions, and under such regulations
as the Congress shall make.
The Congress shall have power to declare the
punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason
shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture
except during the life of the person attainted.
(http://www.aele.org/USConsti.html)
The author placed Article III here as a prelude
to the following nine page letter. The question of
jurisdiction is very important and must be
answered before anything can go forward. The
reader will notice that this letter is very timely
given our current state of affairs.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of
impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial
shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any state, the trial shall be at
such place or places as the Congress may by law
have directed.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
__________________________________________________________
30
EDUARDO M. RIVERA
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
CAL BAR NO. 52737
P.O. Box 14207
Torrance, CA 90503
310-370-3361
September 27, 2002
To: J S N
(address deleted)
Dear Mr. N:
Re: Jurisdiction of United States District Courts
The nature of the revelations in this letter requires
this unique format. District courts of the United
States have been mistaken for Article III since the
Judiciary Act of 1789. Nothing can be done to
change the nature of these courts in the several
states without the direct intervention of Congress.
A judge without judicial power can do nothing to
change the jurisdiction of the court where he
presides. However, there are countless
miscarriages of justice that must be corrected.
Following
my
conclusion,
I
offer
recommendations that should be considered by
anyone that has had contact with a federal court
in the past or may have such contact in the future.
Under no circumstances should any litigant or
defendant in any federal court proceeding attempt
to have the court consider the issues raised in this
letter. You must first assure yourself that opinion
I provide in this letter is absolutely correct before
you confront any federal judge. I suggest that you
create a support group for yourself if want to
challenge a federal judge.
First time recipients of this opinion letter are
provided with the statutes mentioned in my letter.
These materials should be reproduced and
distributed to all persons interested in proper and
efficient judicial administration. I have prefaced
each paragraph with a descriptive sentence in
bold so that a rather long letter can be shortened
to suit the reader’s needs.
OPINION
In my opinion the United States District Court in
your state is not an Article III court. I have been
retained to provide you with my legal opinion of
31
the lawful jurisdiction of the federal district court
or courts that have been used in the past by the
federal government to control those opposed to
the loss of their freedom to the national
government. The federal courts known as United
States District Courts are federal and territorial in
that these courts implement administrative law on
territory exclusively under the jurisdiction of the
United States. These courts are being used
primarily to prevent the rendition of law and
equity in national courts by masquerading as
Article III courts. These courts are incapable of
achieving justice because they are not Article III
courts. This opinion letter will explain in
summary fashion why we have two such courts.
The true nature of the government of the United
States of America is libertarian. Very few of the
Posterity of the People that ordained and
established the Constitution are aware that the
loose confederation of state governments that
became the United States of America is a true
libertarian government. It is true that the nation
created by the Articles of Confederation lacked
the autonomy to compete with the European
empires but that was of small importance to the
people. Nevertheless the Constitution of the
United States was proposed and intended to
perfect the Union and establish a government that
would carry out the aims expressed in the
Preamble to the Constitution. The purpose of the
Constitution was to establish and limit
government to the purposes for which it was
established. Unfortunately, the Congress has used
very effectively the mechanisms in the
Constitution to limit the third branch of the
national government to the people’s detriment.
This opinion letter will offer some
recommendations to correct what the Congress
has done but there can be no doubt that Congress
has failed to provide Article III courts in the
several states.
The present intent of the federal government is to
subject you to its administration. If you would be
content to survive or thrive on your own without
interference of a national government, in a short
time an organization with federal government ties
would attempt to draw you into its administration
of some social welfare program. Because you are
in America you are free not to participate if you
so choose. However, many people find
themselves in a federal court that gives no
assurance of being optional. Americans do not
want to be in a court that denies them their
freedom, however, for more than 200 years
Americans have been subjected to administrative
law in courts they believed were dispensing the
judicial power of the United States.
Disguised administrative courts are being used to
subvert your freedom. If you are being harassed
by persons claiming to represent the government
especially the national government, and you
steadfastly refuse to consent to their demands you
will likely later find yourself near or in an
administrative, legislative, non-judicial court.
You can bet that the court causing you immediate
concern is not an Article III court. Since the court
determines the judges’ power and authority, the
judge will not have judicial power, temperament
or restraint. Individuals appointed to these United
States District Courts are lead to believe that they
are real judges and they are actually urged by the
other two branches of government to act like
judges.
Article III judicial power imposes self-restraint
on judges. Only judges appointed to Article III
courts may exercise the judicial power of the
United States. Judicial power imposes restraints
on the judges that have it that serves as some
protection from judicial abuse. All justices
appointed to the Supreme Court of the United
States are real Article III judges. Forget about
having a judge of this temperament involved in
any federal case you might ever have. The judges
of the other two types of courts, of course, have
no constitutional judicial power so they tend to be
extremely rigid in the way they administer their
“judicial business.” That rigidity is the result of
the tight rein that the Congress maintains over the
personnel and business of non-Article III courts
to solely achieve congressional purposes.
United States District Court judges are lifetime
administrators. Congress has provided for the
appointment of administrators to lifetime tenures
to courts created without Article III power and
obtained a means by which it can continue to
legislate long after a typical legislative enactment
and executive approval would have run its normal
course. The federal income tax is the best
example. Just when genuine tax protesters in civil
federal juries were about to decimate the tax, the
Collector of Internal Revenue was abolished and
the tax was made collectible by "voluntary
compliance." Article I and Article IV courts now
drain off all opposition to the federal income tax.
A tax that is paid by "voluntary compliance"
cannot be litigated because there is nothing to
litigate—the tax is, of course, paid voluntarily.
Alleged tax crimes do not take place in Article III
courts because none exist in the several states.
Those who do not volunteer to pay their taxes are
prosecuted in Article IV courts where a
conviction is practically assured because the court
is organized primarily to collect taxes and
administer the federal government.
The Constitution is a limitation on Congress. The
Constitution grants to Congress power to create
courts by exercising three different powers. At
various times in the history of this country
Congress has created courts using these various
powers under Article I, Article III and Article IV
of the Constitution:
1. The Congress shall have power…To constitute
Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
2. The judicial power of the United States, shall
be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish.
3. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of
and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States;
Even Article III courts are limited to their
territorial jurisdiction. Based on the statute law
that created the various United States district
courts throughout the several states, I have
concluded that these courts are of limited federal
territorial jurisdiction and that you are not to
assume these courts have any power over you. A
United States court with the name of a state of the
Union is little different from a state court. In
order for a court to have jurisdiction over you,
there must be minimum contacts by you with the
territory that makes up its geographical
32
jurisdiction. Never voluntarily appear in these
courts because your presence gives the court
jurisdiction over you. These courts are not subject
to regular judicial rules because they are not
Article III courts. The Article III district court in
the seat of government will not be of any value
because its purpose is to support government and
not to provide you with protection from its
abuses.
DISCUSSION
Lawyers and judges must be aware of the true
nature of the courts they practice and preside in.
During the more than 30 years that I have been a
practicing attorney in California, I have appeared
in and represented clients in many different
courts, but I only recently began researching how
the courts are constituted. I have discovered that
the United States district courts established in
California and in 48 other states by United States
Statute are not Article III courts. There is
confusion as to the difference between Article III
courts and those courts that are other than Article
III courts. Article III district courts are not
territorially different from the tribunals inferior to
the Supreme Court that Congress may constitute
pursuant to Article I. Federal courts do not extend
their judicial districts beyond federal territory.
Article III courts are “territorial courts” that may
exercise the judicial power of the United States—
Article I and IV courts have no such power.
Congress has established Article III district courts
in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The 2
district courts of the United States that were
ultimately pronounced ordained and established
by Congress pursuant to Article III of the
Constitution are the only ones that can exercise
the judicial power of the national government.
The judicial power of the Hawaii district court
securely bound up in that court without a chance
of extraction. California and the other 48 states of
the Union must have United States courts with
judicial power if the people are to obtain justice
in law and equity from United States courts. That
is not something that Congress wants to happen
anytime soon. Congress and the President will
stop at nothing to keep a steady stream of
voluntary tax payment into the United States
Treasury. Administrative federal courts
33
pretending to be courts of law and equity are
interfering with California’s sovereignty and can
prevent prosecution of terrorists in the federal
courts in all the states but one—maybe. Perhaps
the increased demand for medical uses for
marijuana will break the lock that the Article IV
territorial courts have had on state government.
Lifetime tenure during good behavior is criteria
for a judge not criteria for an Article III court. A
natural for the law school set, lifetime tenure
fuels the universal presumption in the legal
academic community that the federal districts
courts are Article III courts and the judges that sit
on those courts are Article III judges. I have
found no basis for that presumption. Lifetime
tenure as a predictor of judicial independence
itself seems an invalid assumption. There is only
one viable Article III district court in
Washington, D. C., so there is little evidence to
support that presumption. Because Congress can
make law locally or nationally, it must be
presumed that law enacted by Congress is
territorial in scope rather than national, Foley
Bros. Inc. v. Filardo 336 U.S. 281(1949), unless a
contrary intent is shown in the legislation itself.
The legislation creating the district court for
Hawaii is the only example of a national
legislative intent to create an Article III court in
any of the 50 states of the Union. I have
personally examined all the Statute Law used to
create the district courts in the several states and
Hawaii stands alone as the only state to have an
Article III district court.
Combining the district court for Puerto Rico with
the other United States District Courts identifies
them all as territorial. The federal district courts
are found in Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and
Judicial Procedure, in the sections numbered from
81 to 131. Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into
positive law in 1948. The district courts were
found in Chapter 5 just as they are today. The
districts themselves had not changed from 1911
when they were described as the territory that
existed on July 1, 1910. The territory was, for
example, the “State of California” which then and
now consists of the federal territory within
California and today is defined in Rev. & Tax.
Code Sections 5304 and 6017.
Puerto Rico is not a state of the Union. Its
inclusion in Chapter 5 and appearance in §119
identifies the “states” in the sections of Chapter 5
as mere labels for the areas of federal territory.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico includes the
federal territory under the jurisdiction of the
United States. Included, for example, in the
“State of California” is the territory of the United
States located in the California Republic. Use of
the “State of California” facilitates the use of
federal law to create a California personal income
tax. State of California denotes those special
federal places where the United States has
jurisdiction.
Congress established the only Article III court for
a state of the Union in Hawaii. Hawaii appears in
§91 as the only Article III court but that court is
qualified as to the way judges are to be appointed
to that court. That qualification precludes the
exercise of Article III judicial power by any judge
appointed to that court. Under the heading for §
91 Hawaii, “Court of the United States; District
Judges,” will found, Section 9 (a) of Pub. L. 86-3
which provides that:
“The United States District Court for the District
of Hawaii established by and existing under title
28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be
a court of the United States with judicial power
derived from article III, of the Constitution of the
United States: Provided, however, that the terms
of office of the district judges for the district of
Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the
effective date of this section and the President,
pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28,
United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall
appoint, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, two district judges for the said district
who shall hold office during good behavior.”
All of Title 28 U.S.C. provides for the territorial
government of the United States and nothing of
Article III can be put back into it without
destroying the entire Title 28 U.S.C. as positive
law. In other words, there may be a present belief
by all of the state and federal judiciary, all the
legal academic community and all the local, state
and federal government officials that the United
States district courts for the 50 states of the Union
are Article III courts, but they are wrong.
Congress prevented the ordination of the Article
III it established for Hawaii by denying the court
full Article III judges. Congress took a territorial
court established by and existing under title 28
and created an Article III district court for
Hawaii. It must be noted that the territorial
jurisdiction did not change—only the power of
the court. Congress has not, however, provided
that the judges to that court are to be appointed to
an Article III court. The district judges for the
district of Hawaii are specifically to be appointed
by the President pursuant to sections 133 and 134
of title 28, United States Code, as officers of the
United States but not as judges of an Article III
court. These two sections are also to be used in
appointing any of 7 judges of the Puerto Rico
district should a vacancy occur there. It can be
deduced that appointment pursuant to 133 and
134 of title 28, will always produce territorial
judges.
The Hawaii judicial district established in § 91 of
the Judicial Code of 1948 was a territorial court.
Section 9 (a) clearly indicates that prior to the
admission to statehood, the United States District
Court of Hawaii was not a true United States
court established under Article III of the
Constitution, to administer the judicial power of
the United States, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S.
298, 312 (1922). In Balzac, Chief Justice William
Howard Taft stated that United States District
Court for Arecibo, Porto Rico, as Puerto Rico
was known then, “created by virtue of the
sovereign congressional faculty, granted under
Article IV, § 3, of that instrument, of making all
needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory belonging to the United States.” Puerto
Rico is the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and it
has not been incorporated into the United States
though its inhabitants are United States citizens.
The inclusion of Puerto Rico in Chapter 5 as §
119 does not make the district court for Puerto
Rico an Article III court because Puerto Rico has
not been incorporated into the Union. Puerto Rico
fits comfortably among the names of the 50 states
because the geographical areas are mini federal
territories or federal enclaves.
Government people are required to obey the law;
it is their duty to obey the law. The government’s
34
law requires the total obedience of government’s
officers and employees but can impose upon
citizens only certain legal duties. In the words of
the Declaration of Independence, “Governments
are instituted among men” to secure God given
rights. Citizens are not part of government and
they are not its subjects. There is only one duty
that citizens have that indirectly protects the
government. That duty demands that citizens
must investigate and then determine the nature
and extent of the authority of every person or
group of persons, such as a grand jury, claiming
any authority relationship with any government.
As an abstract entity, a government maintains
integrity through its agents and employees
lawfully interacting with the public. A citizen’s
failure to carry out the investigation and
determination of authority has grave
consequences both for the citizen, his fellow
citizens and the government. That duty has
caused you to retain me to assist you in
evaluating the claim that you should present
yourself to give testimony. You have sought my
counsel so you can determine the authority of a
grand jury and of a person claiming to be the
United States Attorney or one of his delegates or
deputies.
A Citizen has a duty to question the authority of
all who claim to represent government. You are
cautioned against following any instructions that
may be given you in any initial correspondence
with any United States Attorney federal court.
Agreeing to abide by any instructions set out in
such a document is tantamount to accepting
jurisdiction of what I have proven to be a
territorial court. Because the law imposes a duty
that you investigate the authority of all the
persons from all departments of the government
whose names appear on any document that even
suggests that you act in a certain way, acting in a
way suggested by them is evidence of your
consent to their authority over you. Since these
individuals are all connected with the United
States district court for the territorial district of
___________, your own investigation should
begin there.
No other state has an Article III court. The federal
district courts of California fall squarely within
the mold of the federal courts of the 49 states that
35
have no Article III district courts. I have
examined copies of all the Statute Laws described
in the annotations to all the Chapter 5 sections of
Title 28 that establish district courts in the states
and Hawaii has the only Article III district court.
I am convinced that none of the other states
including California federal courts are Article III
courts and that the district judges that sit in those
courts are appointed pursuant to Title 28 and not
Article III. When I examined all other related
legal literature, I could find no evidence or
reference to evidence that either the California
federal courts or district judges were established
pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. I now
make it my business to provide my opinion of the
current state of the judicial system along with the
statute law that supports that opinion. I am
prepared to share what I have found with other
interested researchers.
Citizens have a duty to discover the true authority
of those claim government power. The
consequences of not investigating and not
determining the nature and extent of the authority
claimed is that you may have to bear the costs of
your failure to do so. The federal income tax is
local legislation directed at taxation of federal
income in the hands of its officers and employees
that agree to the taxation before they receive any
income. However, anyone can participate in the
system of federal income taxation by making a
return and as a consequence many do without
conscious realization. The court system that
assists in its administration is necessarily
administrative itself because no judicial powers
were ever conferred to it. The research that is
included with this letter proves that the federal
courts are administrative law courts and not
courts that have been ordained and established
under Article III to exercise the judicial power of
the United States.
The use of the term, “district courts of the United
States” refers to Article III courts. There are at
least two “district courts of the United States,”
but probably no others. There is no doubt that the
district court for Hawaii is an Article III court—
that’s one. The § 88 court for the District of
Columbia is another. The Historical and Revision
Notes to that section makes it clear that the
District of Columbia district court is a
constitutional court established and ordained
under Article III. The existence of at least two
“district courts of the United States” permits the
general usage of language that refers to the
“district courts of the United States” as Article III
courts.
State courts that were already established when
the Constitution was ratified were duty bound to
obey the Constitution and the laws enacted
pursuant to it. Reference to the Judiciary Act of
1789 clarified and substantiated that no Article III
district courts had been created in the several
states pursuant to that law. Districts were created
for territories that by the date of enactment,
September 24, 1789 had not yet ratified the
Constitution because, of course, they were not
states. North Carolina did not ratify the
Constitution until after enactment of the Judiciary
Act of 1789. District courts created under that act
could not have been created under Article III. The
federal trial courts during the period of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 were manned by two
United States Supreme Court justices riding
circuit and the district judge for the district. The
Judiciary Act of 1879 and every other Judiciary
Act since that one are also supportive of my
position on these United States district courts.
The evidence is incontrovertible—Hawaii is the
only state in which the Congress has established
an Article III United States district court. In the
very same law, Congress has neutralized the
Article III district court by installing district court
judges without Article III judicial power. This
creates a crisis of immense concern in our war
against terrorism. Any terrorist indicted by a
grand jury of any United States district courts
may effectively challenge the grand jury array
because that court is a territorial court and the
grand jury is drawn from a vicinage outside the
federal territory that actually and legally
constitutes the territorial district of all district
courts.
Grand and petit jurors determine if they are
citizens of the United States and whether they
have resided in judicial district for a year. In 1968
Congress enacted the Jury Selection and Service
Act that uses the nation’s voter registration
system as the basis for jury selection in the
federal courts. I have examined many of the Plans
the district courts have created and that have been
approved by the federal courts of appeal. The jury
questionnaire in common use merely asks an
applicant a half dozen questions beginning with,
if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the judicial district for at least a year.
Very few Americans can prove that they are,
indeed, citizens of the United States and
practically no one understands that the Sixth
Amendment requires that vicinage be established
prior to trial. For all of the states, district court
vicinage is the federal territory within the
counties that comprise the district. This is the
only vicinage that satisfies the 6th Amendment
command that the “district shall have been
previously ascertained by law.” An individual
jurors impression of what constitutes the judicial
district does not satisfy the Constitution. Today
most federal grand jurors live outside the judicial
district and any apprehended terrorist can easily
challenge them and any true bill of indictment.
All trial courts must have districts which shall
have been previously ascertained by law. Venue
and vicinage are being confused because an
erroneous assumption is being universally made
that the federal district courts are Article III
courts. Of the 50 states only Hawaii can be shown
to have an Article III district court. Vicinage
describes where jurors come from. The areas
from where Article III court jurors are to be
drawn is the same as a territorial federal court.
Grand and petit jurors for other than an Article III
courts are territorial and they must only come
from the federal territory within a district
comprised of named counties but they are being
drawn from outside the federal territory. Any
grand and petit juror that resides outside a federal
territory does not reside within the district and
can successfully be challenged as unqualified.
A federal territorial court without Article III
power cannot be conferred such power by the
litigants. One United States district court cannot
legitimately serve both local federal and national
interests. The interests of the two courts are
almost completely mutually exclusive. Territorial
courts without judicial power tenaciously serve
the need of Congress to administer government
law and not necessarily the needs of the nation’s
36
people. There are in the several states only
territorial courts and these courts cannot be used
to further national interests and certainly they do
not have the capacity to examine their own
limitations. These courts only have the
jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress and
they guard that jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other judicial concepts.
Based upon the research I have done and that is
provided herewith, all the United States district
courts in 49 of the several states are other than
Article III of the United States Constitution
courts. There, simply, is no evidence that the
United States district courts for your state are
ordained and established pursuant to Article III,
Section 1; therefore, they are not vested with the
judicial power of the United States. Article III has
not been invoked by Congress in creating any of
your state’s federal district courts and the 1911
Judiciary Act specifically creates those federal
courts from the territory of the United States.
When it is apparent that court officials are
unaware of the limitations on their authority, it is
never wise to attempt to correct these officials in
their own court.
Non-judicial, legislative, administrative and
territorial courts are incapable of exercising the
judicial power of the United States, which can
only be found in an Article III court. Article III of
the Constitution has expressly granted to
Congress the power to vest courts inferior to the
Supreme Court with the judicial power of the
United States. The Constitution does not prohibit
the creation of federal courts outside of Article
III. It follows, therefore, that at the very least
Congress must invoke the authority of Article III
in creating Article III courts just so one court can
be distinguished from another. Congress must
start with the language of the Constitution if the
final outcome is to be courts ordained and
established by Congress under that article.
Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 5 which has been enacted
into positive law provides for an Article III for
Hawaii and no others. To support all the
conclusions that I have made in this opinion
letter, I have provided the portion of Title 28
U.S.C. that deals with the federal courts in your
state, the statute law cited by Title 28 U.S.C. as
37
involved in the creation of the federal courts in
your state and the same for the district court in
Hawaii. In 1959, Congress established the only
state district court under Article III, so the statute
and code law for the Hawaii district court will
prove interesting when you examine the creation
of your own state’s federal courts. It is apparent
that the district court in Hawaii is not functioning
as an Article III court, so the issue of what
additional acts of ordination and establishment
must be undertaken to create Article III courts
will be the subject of another opinion letter. I
advise you to read all the written material after
you have read my letter so you can understand
how consenting to the general territorial
jurisdiction of these territorial courts obviated any
need for national Article III courts.
The evidence that exists to show that the federal
district courts are ordained and established
pursuant to Article III is anecdotal or
circumstantial. The Constitution provides that
Congress shall vest the judicial power of the
United States in “such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish.” That same language was used in the
Preamble to the Constitution to “ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.” There can be no question that the
Congress has established but not ordained an
Article III in Hawaii and in no other states. All
that remains is to understand the consequences of
what has happened and to learn from it.
Legal scholars assume without justification that
the federal district courts are Article III courts. I
have discovered and I hope proven that no
responsible public federal officer has ever
questioned their assumptions. In all the legal
literature I examined, status of the United States
district courts as Article III was assumed despite
all the contrary authoritative evidence. The
United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac
v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and Mookini
v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) made it
clear that a “district court of the United States”
described a court created under Article III and a
“United States district court” described a
territorial court. The former identified a
constitutional court of the United States
exercising the judicial power of the United States
and the latter merely identified a court for a
district of the government of the United States.
Legal scholars are interpreting the power and
authority of the federal courts without resort to
the statute law that created and established them.
There is no way to change the language of
statutes decades old. The complete statute law
and enacted Title 28 U.S.C. is presented here for
your consideration. You are again, however,
cautioned not to take the issue of jurisdiction to
the federal courts as they are presently
constituted. The federal courts are territorial
legislative courts. This means that they are
administrative courts without judicial power and
you are without judicial protections if you submit
yourself to them. The judges of these courts are
there to serve the Congress and not any of the
people.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this letter is to advise and counsel
those who fear that they are being oppressed by a
distant government. You will find that when you
first remove the oppression caused by your own
ignorance foreign oppression will subside and
disappear altogether. The United States district
courts are territorial and without judicial power.
This has been so since the Judiciary Act of 1789.
If you do not believe this to be true, I have
provided the means by which you can dispute my
opinion. The complete absence of any Article III
district courts in 49 of the 50 states is a “judicial”
disaster waiting to happen. So far, it appears that
no terrorist is aware that he or she may escape
prosecution for a crime of terrorism because there
is only one judicial court in the United States trial
court system. Past Congresses may have been
able to successfully construct a complex
administrative criminal law process where an
accused voluntarily accepts the jurisdiction of a
non-article III federal court and judge, but
dedicated and emboldened terrorists may be able
to destroy it in one case. Congress must
immediately establish Article III courts.
My task was to determine the legitimate
jurisdiction of the federal district courts in your
state. I fulfilled my objective in the only
reasonable manner possible; I gathered all the
statute law and enacted code law used to create
the federal courts in all the states. I found only
one instance in which Congress had declared that
Article III was used to create the court. The one
exception is the district court of Hawaii. Without
exception, all the federal courts in your state are
territorial. The territory that constitutes each of
the judicial districts of each court is the federal
enclaves within the counties of the state that
comprise those judicial districts. Once the
documentation for your local federal courts is
reviewed and compared to the cross references
provided in the government’s own Title 28
U.S.C., the public deception becomes flagrant.
The occasion of Hawaii’s admission to the Union
in 1959 was certainly an appropriate event to
establish an Article III court for the federal
territory in those islands. Why has Congress not
acted to create Article III courts in the remaining
49 states? The simple answer is that would have
reduced its power. The more complex answer to
that question lies in the need that early Americans
felt to declare their independence from an unjust
king. The following passage from the Declaration
of Independence should teach that history repeats
itself, especially, for those who refuse to learn it
the first time around.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice,
by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing
Judiciary Powers
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone,
for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount
and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and
sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our
People, and eat out their Substance.
Your personal Declaration of Independence can
be a simple recognition that Americans have
managed to govern themselves without real
federal judicial trial courts for more than 200
years.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
38
Jurisdiction - continued
“Courts are constituted by authority and they
cannot go beyond that power delegated to them.
If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in
contravention of it, their judgements and orders
are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable,
but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”
WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12
L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 )
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot
proceed when it clearly appears that the court
lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to
reach merits, but rather should dismiss the
action.” Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026
“There is no discretion to ignore lack of
jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be
assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v.
Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be
assumed and must be decided.” Maine v
Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear
on the record of the administrative agency and all
administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine
415 U. S. 533
Though not specifically alleged, defendant's
challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly
raised claim that default judgment against him
was void and relief should be granted under Rule
60(b)(4). Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433,
436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982)
“The burden shifts to the court to prove
jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d
416
Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 123031 (8th Cir. 1997) (as long as there is an
“arguable basis” for subject matter jurisdiction, a
judgment is not void)
“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction
facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana
v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York
37 F Supp. 150
Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171- 72, 59 S.Ct.
134 (1938) (“Every court in rendering a judgment
tacitly, if not expressly, determines its jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter.”)
“The law provides that once State and Federal
Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven.” 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.”
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906,
910
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter may be raised at any time, even on
appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines
Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA
1985)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction
facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana
v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York,
37 F. Supp. 150
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
39
Disclaimer
For the record – this author is not a BAR
attorney. The information contained in this
writing is for educational purposes only.
Nothing set forth herein is intended to be legal
advice or able to be construed as such. This
information is private in entirety and nonnegotiable between the parties.
This presentation is designed to provide
information with regard to the subject matter
covered. It is provided under the understanding
that the author is not engaged in rendering legal,
taxation or other professional services. If legal or
other expert assistance is required, the services
of a competent professional should be sought.
You are urged to read all the material, go outside
this document, research and learn as much as
possible about the issues and to tailor
information to your own individual needs.
Every effort has been made to make this
information as complete and accurate as
possible. However, there may be mistakes both
typographical and in content. The information
has been gathered from many sources, the
reliability of which cannot be guaranteed.
The intent of the author in sharing this
information is to further the causes of freedom,
understanding, and pursuit of happiness in
accordance with such timeless principles as:
“Know the truth and the truth shall make you
free.” and “He who helps others helps himself”
and the Declaration of Independence (1776). The
author shall have neither liability nor
responsibility to any person or entity with
respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged
to be caused, directly or indirectly by the
information contained herein.
While the author believes everything in this
writing is moral, legal and ethical, I do NOT
purport to be either an ‘attorney’ or specialist
regarding state legal and regulatory codes in the
location(s) where you might be domiciled. I
cannot, therefore, try to interpret the myriad
state and local variations on laws, statutes,
regulations and the like, on your behalf. That
task is up to you.
We must remember that the United States’
courts today are not courts of law. They are
courts of colorable law and it is imperative that
we know how to discharge said liabilities
through the correct form – the Uniform
Commercial Code. Should you get drawn into
“their” forum you must play by “their” rules.
Another example of colorable law: Recently the
supreme Court ruled that it is not unlawful for
law enforcement agencies to set up road blocks
and stop all vehicle in order to determine if the
driver is driving under the influence of alcohol.
(99-1030) Obviously such a ruling would not
come out of a court of law. Such a ruling is
completely contrary to the Fourth Amendment.
Also, the author has gone all out to be respectful
of gender. There are times in this writing where
it is not practical to be “politically correct.” This
author does not desire to offend anyone.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
40
Appendix A
Accused: Where did you get the address that you
wrote on this citation?
Affirmative Defense:
Officer: Well, I got it from your driver's license.
The following situations are examples where a
natural person might enter what is referred to as
an affirmative defense. (Affirmative Defense? See
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(c) and
compare to UCC 1-103.)
Accused: (Handing the officer your driver's
license) Is this the document you copied the
name and address from?
Officer: Yes, this is where I got it.
The person accused (one should never answer as or
refer to themselves as a “defendant” as only
defendants go to jail – and, unless I missed it, the
word/term “defendant” is not used anywhere in the
Constitution, the word/term “accused” is) say: “If
the government says I owe it, I probably owe it;
but the government put me in this situation by
taking away my gold and silver and leaving me
with nothing but colorable negotiable
instruments, Federal Reserve Notes, to…. “
“ … I did what I did so without prejudice under
UCC 1-207”
In another case:
Judge: “You were driving on such-and-such
road, right?”
Accused: “If I was, I did so without prejudice
under UCC 1-207”
And here is an example of COURTROOM
TECHNIQUE
using
the
UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE
Accused: Your Honor, there is a question I
would like to ask before I can make a plea of
innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if
I could put the officer on the stand for a moment
and ask him a few short questions.
Judge: I don't see why not. Let's swear the
officer in and have him take the stand.
Accused: (to police officer) Is this the
instrument that you gave me? (…handing him
the traffic citation)
Officer: Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has
the other portion of it.
41
Accused: While you've got that in your hand,
would you read the signature that's on that
license?
(The officer reads the signature)
Accused: While you're there, would you read
into the record what it says under the signature?
Officer: It says, 'Without prejudice, UCC 1-207'
Judge: - Let me see that license! (He looks at it
and turns to the officer) -You didn't notice this
printing under the signature on this license,
when you copied his name and address onto the
ticket?
Officer: Oh, no. I was just getting the address -I didn't look down there.
Judge: You're not very observant as an officer.
Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot accept your
testimony in regards to the facts of this case.
This case is dismissed.
In this case, the Judge found a convenient way
out - he could say that the officer was not
observant enough to be a reliable witness. He did
not want to admit the real nature of the
jurisdiction of his court. Once it was in the
record that you had written “Without prejudice
UCC 1-207” on your license, the Judge knew
that he would have to admit that:
•
You had reserved your common Law
rights under the UCC;
•
You had done it sufficiently by clearly /
legibly writing: “Without prejudice UCC
1-207” on your driver's license, in black
color, under your signature with
something like a fine point permanent
marker pen;
•
The statute you are accused of violating
would now have to be read in harmony
with common Law, and common Law
says the statute exists, but there is no
injured party; and
•
since there is no injured party or
complaining witness, the court has no
jurisdiction under common Law.
If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts
of the case, then you will want to ask him the
following question:
Your Honor, let me understand this correctly…
has this court made a legal determination that it
has authority under the jurisdiction that it is
operating under, to ignore sections of the
Uniform Commercial Code that have been called
to its attention?
If he says yes, firmly and politely tell him that
you put the court on notice that you will appeal
that legal determination, and that if you are
damaged by his actions, you will sue him in a
common law action - under the jurisdiction of
the UCC and that you’ll make sure his/her
bonding company is made aware of his/her
action, and then stand mute.
More examples:
In a criminal matter you are accused of
something specific and “they” have to make
“their” case. From the moment you hear the
words: “You are under arrest.” Know and
understand the next statement that “they” say:
“Anything you say can and will be used against
you …” (Miranda Rights statement) this is
supremely important! Anything you say most
likely will be used against you. I have seen
police officer training. I have seen prosecutor
training. The best advise is to keep you mouth
shut. You don’t have to answer any questions
regardless of what “they” say. You are on your
way to jail regardless of anything you may now
say anyway – get use to it. For all of the time
you are in custody “they” are looking for
something, anything they may use against you.
And “they” will use it. You’ve heard stories and
seen the TV shows about things like this,
jailhouse snitches, hidden cameras and
microphones in cells and interrogation rooms. If
you think this is about fun and games I suggest
you think again. You probably shouldn’t have
done the whatever that got you to this place but
it is too late for that thinking now. Keep quite. If
they want to strip search you tell them that it is
against your religious beliefs to disrobe
anywhere other than in your home, privately.
Most likely “they” will respect this, if they don’t
the First Amendment folks will be all over them.
Don’t talk to your cellmate. Don’t request any
councilors; if you do feel you need medical
attention don’t hesitate to ask. And remember
you don’t need to bargain for anything. You
have the right to an lawyer/attorney. Once you
say you want one “they” cannot go further until
you get one. It is to your advantage not to talk in
“their” presence with your lawyer and to say
very little to your lawyer while you are in
custody. Silence is golden – anything else is not.
Go for the gold! They can only hold you for so
long, generally 48 hours, without a hearing
before a Judge. Remember that while you are in
custody you are only accused. At the hearing
(arraignment) the Judge is going to ask you
questions – stay silent – even if “they” have your
name do not respond. Stand mute. The Judge has
to enter something and most likely he/she will
enter “John Doe” for your name, its OK. The
Judge is going to ask how do you plead – guilty
or not guilty. Logic: you say “guilty” it’s all
over. You say “not guilty” and now you have to
prove it. Of course “they” have to prove you
guilty but you have just accepted their charge
and entered into an agreement with them and
now that agreement has to be fulfilled. If you
have kept silent till now you are doing great!
The Judge has to enter something, either “guilty”
or “not guilty”. If he/she enters “guilty” he/she
has violated your due process and it won’t fly.
He/she knows this and most likely will enter a
plea of “not guilty” for you. Let the ink dry – but
before he/she says “next” say: FOR THE
RECORD: Is that [not guilty] a judicial or an
administrative ruling? The Judge has to respond
with whatever - and then you have “’em.” Either
42
way the ruling is that you are “not guilty” – it is
“their” call not yours. So it is time for “them” to
release you, case closed. Say little, if anything at
all – you’re not free yet. If “they” start giving
you any static stand your ground – if they get
mean just ask if the Judge is going to reverse the
ruling. Start mentioning the ACLU, NAACP if
applicable, and that you intend to bring this to
the attention of their bonding agency. If the
Judge starts talking contempt ask what you
might do to avoid contempt charges and then tell
him/her that you’ll do it without prejudice
pursuant to UCC 1-207. “They” are not going to
be happy about this situation – you just beat
them. “They” cannot charge you again for the
same offense (double jeopardy), but “they” can
charge you with something else. Your objective
is to be released from custody without incident.
Remember you may have just been ruled “not
guilty” but you are not out of custody until you
are. So keep cool and silent. You can celebrate
when you are out on the street – away, far away,
from “them”.
etc. Human inclination is not to do more than
necessary. Also, he/she is going to consider
whether or not the prospective charges against
you are going to stick. (If you are in the habit of
‘looking’ guilty you may want to consider an
acting class to help you understand how you
present yourself.) Present yourself well, be
respectful and the odds are in your favor that
you’ll be free to go. Put up an ‘attitude’ and
you’re going to fall. Curse the system latter.
Dislike police/law/authority in private. Police
deal with public matters.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
--- … --___________________________________________________________
Some bantering that you may do before “they”
arrest you…
Police: Sir/Mam, it appears that you did this or
that or such and such.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
You: It may appear that I did what you say but I
can assure you that it isn’t true.
•
•
•
I may have had my hand in the cookie jar
because there was a fly that I wanted to
remove.
From your perspective my hand may
have looked like it was in the jar,
however it was on the outside of the jar.
The cookie jar was on its side and I was
attempting to right it.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Points to remember: you want to avoid being
arrested not evade being arrested; you want to
offer the police officer person a plausible reason
as to why they needn’t arrest you. Consider that
an arresting officer has to work because of an
arrest. There is paperwork, court appearances,
43
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Appendix A Extras:
The following responses may be appropriate:
“If it appears that I am ‘a resident’ / ‘ a citizen”
/ ‘an employee’ it is without prejudice…UCC 1207”
(Remember, these Titles of Nobility (employee,
resident, citizen) do not, in themselves, make
you, a natural person, American national, subject
to government servitude; remember, it is the
things that automatically come along with such a
title, the benefit and privileges that make you
subject to the State and Federal government.)
This may apply…
“ …you have put me into this position under
duress. You tricked me into a contract (or
agreement of some kind) that I didn’t
understand. And you forced me to sign it by
coercion. At the time I didn’t have any idea as to
what I was doing, didn’t have a choice, and/or
enough information to act on knowingly and
willingly, and I completely made a mistake.”
Expose the government! Show how the use of
misleading words and phrases have caused you
to make a mistake…
“ …As a supposed representative of the
corporate State of ( – your state – ) you have a
responsibility to tell me of any pending
responsibility on my part; and to inform me of
all of the terms of any agreement you present
me. UCC 3-305
They also try to trick you. If the situation turns
to where the judge threatens you with contempt
of court and says something like: “ …if you
persist in this manner I will find you in contempt
of court and/or put you in jail.” It may be to
your advantage to make the following statement:
“On the record: Okay, I will pay the ticket / fine
/ whatever (or sign the document) under threat,
duress, coercion and protest pursuant to UCC 1207 …If I have to pay you / sign this now I am
reserving my right to sue you later. Also I take
exception to your command and reserve all my
rights. And you can be sure that your bonding
agency will hear of this.”
First: You put it on the record and you reserved
your RIGHTS under UCC 1-207;
Second: You let him/her know that you are
serious – now keep your mouth shut. You may
be baited to say more, if you do you may be on
your way to trouble. You can say something
like: …and further I sayeth not and I stand
mute.
--- … --In a commercial court there is the simple
scenario:
When your case is called:
To the Judge, from outside the courtroom bar,
speak clearly, loud enough and say: ON the
record, may I have your name…
(Judge’s name – not title), Do you have claim
against me?
(Judge’s name – not title), Do you know of
anyone (not anybody) who has a claim against
me?
(if Yes – you say: I request / demand that you /
they be sworn in and testify under oath as to the
actual damage stated in the claim that you / they
are pressing. If you get a response like: “The
State of Texas… (blah, blah, etc.)” – then
request that the State of Texas itself take the
stand. And stand mute until it does.)
No response from them, or after a time, you say:
There are no claimants who have sworn in
today, under penalty of perjury, with a first hand
damage claim against me.
You then say: I request the Order of the court be
released to me immediately.
44
You then say: It appears as though this public
business is finished. Since there is no further
public business for me to carry on, I am leaving.
Start walking and don’t look back. Should the
Judge give you any static just begin the sequence
again and be mindful as to not to do anything the
Judge tells you to do (including such seemingly
innocent things like “stop”, “come here”, “come
back here”) lest you begin a new
contract/agreement with him/her and that will
probably get you in trouble.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
Practice on these things before they are needed.
In the time of peace prepare for war. To some
this may be against what they are taught –
consider public education today is meant to
cause the student/attendees to conform rather
than to confront – perhaps this is why it is
referred to as school-daze. It probably goes
against what your parents taught you as well.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
This author presumes you are well along enough
in life to stand up for yourself. Remember this
presumption will stand as truth unless it is
rebutted. Are you going to agree with me?
45
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Notes: _____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Appendix B
Now, here presented, is the ‘big-bang’ for you to
know about.
“It is an established fact that the United States
Federal Government has been dissolved by the
Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat.
1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President
Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R.
192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard
and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the
Sovereign Authority of the United States and the
official capacities of all United States
Governmental
Offices,
Officers,
and
Departments and is further evidence that the
United States Federal Government exists today
in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy
are the International Bankers, via the United
Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices,
Officials, and Departments are now operating
within a de facto status in name only under
Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional
Republican form of Government now dissolved,
the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a
new form of government for the United States.
This new form of government is known as a
Democracy,
being
an
established
Socialist/Communist order under a new
governor for America. This act was instituted
and established by transferring and/or placing
the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of
the Governor of the International Monetary
Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R.
13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of
Treasury receives no compensation for
representing the United States?
Gold and silver were such powerful money
during the founding of the united states of
America, that the founding fathers declared that
only gold or silver coins can be “money” in
America. Since gold and silver coinage were
heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions,
they were stored in banks and a claim check was
issued as a money substitute. People traded their
coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is
not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable
currency must promise to pay a dollar
equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal
Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises,
and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is
a debt obligation of the federal United States
government, not “money?’ The federal United
States government and the U.S. Congress were
not and have never been authorized by the
Constitution for the united states of America to
issue currency of any kind, but only lawful
money, -gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction
between real money and paper money substitute.
One cannot get rich by accumulating money
substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt.
We the People no longer have any “money.”
Most Americans have not been paid any
“money” for a very long time, perhaps not in
their entire life. Now do you comprehend why
you feel broke? Now, do you understand why
you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the
country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned
checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an
inflatable paper system designed to create debt
through inflation (devaluation of currency).
Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a
money substitute in the economy without a
corresponding increase in the gold and silver
backing, inflation occurs.
There is a fundamental difference between
“paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a
debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e.
gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs,
you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a
debt with a debt currency system. You cannot
service a debt with a currency that has no
backing in value or substance. No contract in
Common law is valid unless it involves an
exchange of “good & valuable consideration.”
Unpayable debt transfers power and control to
the sovereign power structure that has no
interest in money, law, equity or justice because
they have so much wealth already.”
There’s more – check it out by reading the
United States Congressional Record, March 17,
1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303.
46
Appendix C
COMMERCIAL LAW
A phrase used to designate the whole body of
substantive
jurisprudence
(e.g.
Uniform
Commercial Code, Truth in Lending Act)
applicable to the rights, intercourse, of persons
engaged in commerce, trade or mercantile
pursuits. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition
Fundamental principles of human interaction
concerning proof of claim (dispute over title)
and resolution of disputes.
Over the millennia these principles have been
codified into ten (10) fundamental maxims.
Every legal issue and dispute possible is a
function of one or more of these principles. The
UCC is a particular codification of Commercial
Law, oriented towards the contemporary legal,
financial, monetary, and banking system. The
entirety of world commerce now functions in
accordance
with
the
UCC-version
of
Commercial Law. The foundational maxims of
Commercial Law are:
1. A work person is worthy of their hire.
2. All are equal under the law (moral and
natural law).
3. In commerce truth is sovereign.
4. Truth is expressed in the form of an
affidavit.
5. An unrebutted claim, charge, or affidavit
stands as the truth in commerce.
6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the
judgment in commerce.
7. All matters must be expressed to be
resolved.
8. He who leaves the field of baffle first loses
by default.
9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (one
who has not been damaged by, given to,
lost on account of, or put at risk by another
has no basis to make claims or charges
against him/her).
A lien or claim can be satisfied only through
rebuttal by counter-affidavit point-for-point,
resolution by jury, or payment.
47
COMMON LAW.
System of jurisprudence, which originated in
England and was later applied in the United
States, that was originally based on the
procedures developed by free, sovereign, allodial
landowners to resolve disputes over land, such
as borders and ownership. After the Norman
Conquest of 1066, "common law" came to be
based on judicial precedent (court decisions),
which were increasingly absorbed into the
Crown. By such means, what is called "common
law" in name became increasingly Roman Civil
Law. True common law is completely
independent of all governmental involvement.
All governments are variants of Roman Civil
Law, the law of kings, princes, and rulers.
Nevertheless, common law remained based on
transmitted, established principles rather than
legislative enactment (statutes, statutory law,
codes). Great care should be used concerning the
precise manner in which the term, "common
law," is defined, understood, and used. One
should ascertain the implication of the words,
e.g. "what law is common where and to what?"
Traditionally, in the absence of statutory law
regarding a particular subject, the judge-made
rules of common law are the laws on that
subject. Thus the traditional phrase "at common
law" refers to the state of the law in a particular
field prior to the enactment of legislation in that
field.
TITLES OF NOBILITY
A “title” is a mark or designation, i.e., name by
which anything is known. In English law
“nobility” is a division of the people.
In America, Titles of Nobility generally refer to
government created designators such as citizen,
driver, taxpayer and the like. While they may not
appear to be “noble” they are created, never the
less, to divide the populace.
Appendix D
On the question of “patriot”
A dictionary definition of the word “patriot”
reads: A person who loves and loyally or
zealously supports his/her own country. Now
this author suspects that this definition is open to
interpretation as just to who these days qualifies
as a “patriot.” Could it be the person who works
to achieve an understanding and establishing of
self and placement in the world or one who
works for the preservation of the status quo? I
hope by now you realize that you can’t have it
both ways. As it is said: the forces of evil are
always upon us. It is the strong and enlightened
who stand against tyranny and oppression for
they are fortified with truth. Here in Texas we
say that the only things in the middle of the road
are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
Remember the free-will concept mentioned
earlier? You have, as we all do, a choice – the
question now is: With all of this newfound
knowledge, what are you going to do?
Consider doing the redemption process. Until
you have accomplished the redemption process
you have no status in court. Upon filing the
proper paperwork you change from being a
“debtor” to being a “creditor.” Creditors have
standing in court. Creditors can’t be beat!
What's in a name? Very simple: A name is
CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use
your Name or the strawman's name (when they
do not own the title to the strawman) is to violate
the laws of “slander of credit”. Once you have
redeemed the strawman and own him, then any
further commercial process done by any person
(like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement
officer without your consent) is slander of credit
against your strawman. This is a federal criminal
securities violation that means, possibly, prison
for them.
Until you redeem your strawman (the DEBTOR)
with a UCC-1 filing and become the secured
party (the CREDITOR) the living soul, your
strawman is the source of credit for the UNITED
STATES to the public affairs of the nation
through the “pledge” or gift of your property
(your body and energy) to “them” for their use.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Learn how to use the UCC properly and
correctly, then, whenever you receive a
government presentment you can do an Accepted
For Value in accordance with UCC 3-419 and
HJR 192 of June 5, 1933 and give it back to the
person / agency who presented it to you. (traffic
ticket = presentment / police officer = presenter)
The “redemption process”? It is beyond the
scope of this document to explain this further.
__________________________________________________________
Please see the attached letter and
discover how you can begin to
recover what is rightfully yours
__________________________________________________________
Or visit:
http://aware.in-austin.com/
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
(correct address)
48
Appendix E
Miscellaneous about the Government
Here are some select Internet references for
interesting reading and ‘their’ point of view:
www.ustreas.gov/
United States Department of the Treasury
www.usps.com/
United States Postal Service
www.consumer.gov/
Resource for consumer information from the
Federal Government
www.secretservice.gov/
United States Secret Service
www.occ.treas.gov/
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
www.whitehouse.gov/
The White House
“they” may be) have the “volume” turned up to a
deafening roar and the “beat” to an unknowntill-now tempo and as such most of us are
“dancing as fast as we can.” Question is: – just
how long can we survive this way? At the party,
an “aware” person notices that the partygoers are
seemingly having a great time while knocking
themselves out. The D.J. and the organizers are
just going though the motions until it’s all over.
Then they pickup their stuff and go home. The
party attendees stumble home and suffer a
handover the next day while wondering what
happened – and, as they’ve done so in the past,
they are liable to do it again – til they just don’t
do it anymore. The Budda says: “…one goes
around till they drop out.”
A bit metaphorical? - Perhaps. Analogous? You bet! Give it a thought, or two, assign named
players according to your experience and see
how it runs for you.
Notes: _____________________________________________________
One is well advised to obtain and understand as
much about an issue as can be found. This
author does not claim to have all of the
information, nor does he desire to be set-up as an
authority/guru. As a self-directed scholar with
wide-ranging interests I look upon the world and
attempt to digest what is seen and experienced
with the juices of past experiences. I have come
to identify and know several basic aspects of
human performance:
•
It is much easier to withhold something
initially than to make an attempt to take it
away once given.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
•
It is much easier to seek forgiveness than
permission.
___________________________________________________________
•
It is very easy to fall into the “that’s-theway-its-[always]-been-done” trap.
___________________________________________________________
•
“You do it this way because I say so.”
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
I’m sure the reader can offer several more. The
point here being: in the course of human affairs
things happen. By maintaining a consciousness
(an awake-ness) about what is happening one
can make better (in) formed decisions as to
whether or not to participate. They (whoever
49
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Appendix F
Social Security Number – You Ask?
Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that: It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local
government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of
such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
Federal courts have ruled the Privacy Act applies equally to the private sector.
Discover - there is no law requiring an individual to obtain or use a social security number.
A requirement and/or demand that you provide a social security number is a violation of one or more of the
following laws / statutes:
4 CFR 83.9
5 USC Sec. 552a
7 CFR 1.123; 7 USC Sec. 2204g
14 CFR 1212.604
17 CFR 249.501a
19 CFR 118.11; 19 CFR 122.25; 19 CFR 24.5
24 CFR 5.212
28 CFR 16.53; 28 CFR 513.31; 28 CFR 700.25
29 CFR 70a.10; 29 CFR 71.12
31 CFR 1.32; 31 CFR 501.806
32 CFR 270.19; 32 CFR 310.20; 32 CFR 311.5; 32 CFR 316.6; 32 CFR 317.20; 32 CFR 323.5; 32 CFR
505.2; 32 CFR 701.108, 32 CFR 806b.9
38 CFR 1.575; 38 CFR 3.216, 38 USC Sec. 5101
39 CFR 266.4
45 CFR Part 801
47 CFR 0.554
49 CFR 10.29
Check these references for yourself.
50
End
I hereby end with this simple fact. The government is a corporation. You cannot join unequal entities in
law, thus a artificial person (corporate entity) had to be created which is represented by your name in
legalese (straw-man) as a transmitting utility. There is no way around this. Attorneys, judges, etc and their
sympathizers only rule the system through force. They can lock you up and they may choose to ignore
common law but can they rebut the facts?
There are those who will say that ‘most everything contained in this writing is not true – the stuff we here
in Texas see on the ground after a bull has passed. Throughout my life I have seen an almost bewildering
array of defenders, lackeys, shrills, and the like, who ‘beat the drum’ for various causes. For what reasons?
Are they fearful that what they have may be taken from them? Noticed a u.S. Senator say that they
(Congress) had to be very careful about what rights they might take away from Americans – I couldn’t
believe what I had heard but he’d said it never the less. Could this be the attitude today? The Constitution is
very clear in its writing and either it is the basis document from which all else flows or it isn’t. I don’t
believe we can have it both ways.
We all have the power. It is us who are “We the People…” Of course there are those who want us to think
differently.
There are those who want us to believe that drinking chlorinated and fluoridated water is fine for our
health. Before this author’s inquiry into material related to topics in this writing I spent many years looking
at issues of health and well-being as they relate to (what may be termed) the human animal on this planet.
The proponents of chlorinated and fluoridated drinking water include public health officials and “they” will
tell you that their product is safe and OK to use. I say that “they” do a great job (generally) delivering water
that is clean and potable to the faucet in your home – and that is where “their” responsibility ends and yours
begins. Why do “they” chlorinate water? To kill living organisms that may be in the water. This author
knows of no mechanisms in the body that de-activates the chlorine (The chlorine is the same as in the
bleach product you may use in your laundry. They generally add ammonia to stabilize the chlorine and a
couple of other chemicals as well.) The fluoride added is a waste product of the aluminum industry. A lot
of controversy over the years about fluoride and what it comes down to is this: Is it a form of medication or
is it not? Those who think that it is a form of [mandated] medication and care not to participate choose
alternative sources of water. Those who choose to eliminate chlorine and fluoride from their life will tell
you they feel the better for it. And this author believes that to be true. You may choose to continue drinking
contaminated water.
This could go on and on… should you believe that there are no benefits in nutritional supplementation then
go on about your way from those who feel that there is validity in such. (Know this: the current RDA
(Recommended Daily Allowance) was dreamt up by a couple of aids to then u.S. Senator George
McGovern in the early 1960’s.) If you feel that your religion is better that someone else’s that is your
prerogative. (May Allah be praised … or is it Jesus… could it be Vishnu, Zeus or Budda?) And if you feel
that your team is superior to others then by all means stay true to your cause – eat cheese, drink their beer
or whatever.
As individuals we can and do have choice, and we have power. As a society do we need laws? If we answer
yes then should the laws be uniform and equal? And should we all be equal in law until we choose to be
otherwise? I hope by presenting the information that I have a reader’s awareness / consciousness will be
altered and ‘fertilized’ in ways that go on to promote the growth of truth and [what might be called] right
action.
Your comment is welcome.
51
Suggested Reading:
Books this author found both interesting and useful, presented here in no particular order:
Casual Power: How to Power Up Your Nonverbal Communication & Dress Down for Success,
by Sherry Maysonave, ISBN: 1880092484 (1999)
Dress for Success,
by Victor Maxwell, ISBN: 1840300965 (2001)
Your Executive Image: How to Look Your Best & Project Success for Men and Women,
by Victoria A. Seitz, ISBN: 1580621783 (2000)
Born To Win,
by Muriel James, Dorothy Jongeward (Contributor), John Bell (Editor), ISBN: 0201590441 (1996)
The Psychology of Self-Esteem: A Revolutionary Approach to Self-Understanding That Launched
a New Era in Modern Psychology,
by Nathaniel Branden, ISBN: ISBN: 0787945269 (2000)
Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life,
by Sissela Bok, ISBN: 0375705287 (1999)
Parkinson's Law,
by C. Northcote Parkinson, ISBN: 1568490151 (1996)
I Know What You're Thinking: Using the Four Codes of Reading People to Improve Your Life,
by Lillian Glass, ISBN: 0471381403 (2002)
Don't Say Yes When You Want to Say No,
by Herbert Fensterheim, and Jean Baer, ISBN: 0440154138 (1975)
Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership,
by F. G. Bailey, ISBN: 0801494877 (1988)
Never Be Lied to Again: How to Get the Truth in 5 Minutes or Less in Any Conversation or
Situation,
by David J. Lieberman, ISBN: 0312204280 (1999)
The Truth About Lying: How to Spot a Lie and Protect Yourself from Deception,
by Stan B. Walters, ISBN: 1570715114 (2000)
The Screwing of the Average Man,
by David Hapgood, ISBN: 0-385-00589-X (1974)
Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind,
by Al Ries, Jack Trout, ISBN: 0071373586 (2000)
The Manipulators,
by Robert Sobel, ISBN: 0-385-08526-5 (1976)
53